commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject [VOTE] (3) XxxUtilsConstructors last chance
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:03:54 GMT
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 final constructors"
[  ] +1  I agree
[  ] +0  I can accept this
[  ] -0  I don't like it, but won't block it
[  ] -1 I disagree

If the vote passes, [collections], [lang], [io] and [pattern] are affected.
However it is up to the projects as to their approach to implementation.
This is a vote in principle.


Background (if you got bored by the threads)
- A static utility class has only static methods and fields
- Certain tools need instances of static utility classes
- These classes are not intended to be used as beans, hence private
constructors
- The compromise gives public constructors to satisfy the bean based tools
and final to keep the utilities from being abused by subclassing

Stephen


--
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