Add Collection Type Parameter Declarations for method return values?

[micycle1]

Many areas of the codebase return collections without a type parameter declaration (examples below), which introduces the need for superfluous casting in user's code.

Happy to do this myself (at least on the more commonly used areas) -- would you accept a PR for this?

[dr-jts]

This has come up before - see #492.

@jodygarnett do you have any concerns with this? (since GeoTools is a good proxy to determine what effect this will have on client code).

Not directly related to this proposal: discussions and work on adding type parameters to JTS containers: #146, #777, #797 and #799.

[jodygarnett]

Yes, it would be a good idea to add types to the lists, while type eraser is "weak" in Java ... it is still something and can help catch mistakes before runtime.

@micycle1 if you are in position to work on this is would be a welcome addition to the library. We would issue a new dot release (due to API change).

[dr-jts]

@micycle1 How about you start with a PR to add generics to a small number of classes (perhaps just one?) so we can assess how this will work?

[dr-jts]

Also note #797. Perhaps @halset will be willing to rebase that PR so it can be merged?

[micycle1]

@micycle1 How about you start with a PR to add generics to a small number of classes (perhaps just one?) so we can assess how this will work?

The issue I’m referring to isn’t about adding generics to classes (like initialising STRTree with a type, as suggested in the other linked issues). Instead, it’s about ensuring that methods return properly typed values wherever it makes sense.

For example, take the method SegmentStringUtil.extractBasicSegmentStrings(). It currently returns a List of BasicSegmentString objects, but it doesn’t specify the type explicitly. I’m suggesting it should return List<SegmentString> instead of just a raw List. This would make the return type clearer and improve type safety for anyone using the method.

That said, adding generics is a good idea too. I can do that, but it's probably best to use #797 (as you've pointed out) as a starting point.

[dr-jts]

The issue I’m referring to isn’t about adding generics to classes (like initialising STRTree with a type, as suggested in the other linked issues). Instead, it’s about ensuring that methods return properly typed values wherever it makes sense.

Good clarification. I'll update the comment above about related issues to make that clear. I've updated the issue title to clarify as well - feel to improve if needed.

[jodygarnett]

Small feedback on issue title:

Add Type Parameter declarations for method return values

Turns it into a "positive improvement" rather than a mistake being fixed.