Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 22, 2019. It is now read-only.

Support Tables #62

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Support Tables #62

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

hyandell
Copy link

Guava's Tables don't quite fit under map-like types, though they're often used
in place of nested maps. In particular, ImmutableTables don't construct
themselves as nested maps; instead, they construct cell-by-cell. Therefore,
handle them as paramterized beans.

(Contribution from stevenmhood via my approval under CCLA)

Guava's Tables don't quite fit under map-like types, though they're often used
in place of nested maps.  In particular, ImmutableTables don't construct
themselves as nested maps; instead, they construct cell-by-cell.  Therefore,
handle them as paramterized beans.
@cowtowncoder
Copy link
Member

Oh shoot. I somehow managed to let this fall through the cracks. :-(

@cowtowncoder
Copy link
Member

First, apologies for the delay with follow-up. Due to bit of overlap with #73, I decided it might be best to pick up pieces, and so I manually merged serialization side from this PR. So it is probably not possibly to directly merge this PR, but I will try to continue with deser with this and/or #73; I'll have to think about best way (since functionalities differ a bit wrt coverage, implementation).

Thank you again for implementing the support; it is sorely needed.

@stevenmhood
Copy link

I'm fine with merging with #73. The exact approach taken isn't the most
important to me, just that we can serde with Tables, including the
immutable variant. I tried to take inspiration from the ImmutableMap and
Multimap types, and ensure that row/column values can be more than just
primitive types. Those were the features that I needed, so that's where I
started.

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Tatu Saloranta notifications@github.com
wrote:

First, apologies for the delay with follow-up. Due to bit of overlap with
#73 #73, I
decided it might be best to pick up pieces, and so I manually merged
serialization side from this PR. So it is probably not possibly to directly
merge this PR, but I will try to continue with deser with this and/or #73
#73; I'll have
to think about best way (since functionalities differ a bit wrt coverage,
implementation).

Thank you again for implementing the support; it is sorely needed.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#62 (comment)
.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants