commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven Caswell" <ste...@caswell.name>
Subject RE: [VOTE] (3b) XxxUtilsConstructors last chance
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:38:35 GMT
My vote is -0 instead of +0 because I haven't heard anyone present a
serious reason as to why a utility class, a non-bean, should be subject
to subclassing.  I can somewhat see the need for construction for tools
that require a bean (which a utility class really isn't), but I think
other compromises, such as a wrapper class, would also be reasonable.
But again, no serious discussion on this topic was engaged.

> Amended as requested by Daniel.
> > This discussion has gone on for days. This is my last attempt at a
> decision.
> > As such I am placing what is in _my_ judgement the only 
> option likely 
> > to
> be
> > compromised on.
> >
> > No compromise = no change = private
> >
> > "Static utility classes should have public constructors 
> with the class
> declared final"
> > [  ] +1  I agree
> > [  ] +0  I can accept this
> > [XX] -0  I don't like it, but won't block it
> > [  ] -1 I disagree

Steven Caswell
steven@caswell.name
a.k.a Mungo Knotwise of Michel Delving
"One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..."



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message