-
jhyde committed revision 258 to the olap4j SVN repository, changing 6 files.
09:50AM UTC on Jul 06 2009 in olap4j
-
Sounds like we're in agreement. We should override Object.equals and hashCode (as you have already done), but we should not implement Comparable and the compareTo(Object) method. If people want to use these objects in sorted collections, they should implement their own Comparator.
Therefore, I reject this feature request.
09:49PM UTC on Jul 03 2009 in olap4j
-
jhyde committed revision 255 to the olap4j SVN repository, changing 4 files.
05:58PM UTC on Jun 30 2009 in olap4j
-
jhyde committed revision 253 to the olap4j SVN repository, changing 26 files.
03:06AM UTC on Jun 30 2009 in olap4j
-
Maybe. But it's also very easy to create a comparator for each of these objects. I think it makes sense for value objects (such as strings and numbers) to be comparable, but less sense for 'real' objects such as these.
We should not make them comparable unless it there is a single obvious semantics for comparability. For instance, should the 'Measures' dimensions in two cubes compare the same,
09:53PM UTC on Jun 26 2009 in olap4j
-
jhyde committed revision 251 to the olap4j SVN repository, changing 1 files.
09:53PM UTC on Jun 25 2009 in olap4j
-
jhyde committed revision 250 to the olap4j SVN repository, changing 1 files.
09:35PM UTC on Jun 25 2009 in olap4j
-
jhyde committed revision 249 to the olap4j SVN repository, changing 1 files.
09:29PM UTC on Jun 25 2009 in olap4j
-
jhyde committed revision 247 to the olap4j SVN repository, changing 52 files.
05:52AM UTC on Jun 20 2009 in olap4j
-
jhyde committed revision 246 to the olap4j SVN repository, changing 12 files.
12:35AM UTC on Jun 11 2009 in olap4j
