Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.utanet.at!newscore.univie.ac.at!aconews-feed.univie.ac.at!aconews.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer From: Andreas Leitgeb Subject: Re: setSize ArrayList, when will it come? References: Reply-To: avl@logic.at User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-111 (Linux) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: 09 Aug 2011 07:56:36 GMT Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at X-Trace: 1312876596 tunews.univie.ac.at 71616 128.130.175.3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tuwien.ac.at Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6900 Joshua Cranmer wrote: > On 8/8/2011 9:16 PM, Jan Burse wrote: >> The missing thought in the reponse is the design goal >> of ArrayList. They are explicitly advertised in the >> class comment as unsynchronized version of Vector. It >> is brainless not to honor such a design goal in a response. > An unsynchronized version does not necessarily imply that it need be a > full drop-in replacement for the class except with the synchronized > methods removed. Whether "An unsynchronized version" implies "drop-in replacement except for the synchronisation" seems to be a bit fuzzy. To me it kind of does. But even if it didn't, then including a simple convenience method to simplify transition from Vector to ArrayList wouldn't appear as a mistake to me - even though there *is* a clumsy workaround for expanding and some different workaround for shrinking. > Now you're going to argue that it's brainless that ... Sorry to be so direct, but this "prognose" appeared entirely brainless to me. I know, that your arguments usually aren't. I guess this is just the type of answer you give to people that you "identified" as trolls.