Re: New sketch of updated APIs

From: Dhanji R. Prasanna <>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:22:22 +1000

On 4/20/07, Paul Sandoz <> wrote:
> Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
> >
> > Is there some value to us putting some sort of numbering or naming
> > scheme around each of these proposals, so we can formalize referring to
> > them? Perhaps at the head of the thread, like Marc does with code
> > snippets? I think we're going to run into a lot of formers and latters
> > otherwise ;)
> I really was referring to latter/former in reference to what you were
> saying :-)

People who live in glass houses...I really ought to pick better identifiers
Just to clarify, if we used the builder approach as the high-level (only)
case I assume it would mean moving it out of the core into the root package
as the standard case?

but i agree having some formal identifiers would be useful
> when discussing.

See the JavaDoc of MultivaluedMap [1]. It does not break the contract of
> Map:
> public interface MultivaluedMap<K,V>
> extends java.util.Map<K,java.util.List<V>>

Ahh I missed that the first time around (got caught up in commons MultiMap).
This certainly puts a different spin on it. Consider my objection officially
withdrawn. =)

I was referring to the use of Map not to the fact there can be multiple
> values. I was wondering in this case whether List may be appropriate.

Do you mean a list of returned metadata (i.e. headers)? Are you thinking of
something like List<HeaderValue>?