commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:19:03 GMT
From: "Michael A. Smith" <>
> ok, so now there's zero maintenance on this compromise.  Are there any 
> other reasons why this doesn't make people happy?

This is the sixth compromise we've offered. So I'm not optimistic. 

But I now recognise it as the correct design option:
- a static utility classes should be private
- an adaptor bean is required for bean based tools with the same methods
- no big maintainance problem


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message