commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael A. Smith" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Tue, 20 Aug 2002 03:56:49 GMT
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Personally I really like this idea. No misuse of the deprecated word, no
> subclass issues, and who cares about the memory.

This is probably a side conversation, but I don't think the manner in 
which deprecated has been discussed is really a "misuse".  Deprecated 
itself means "to express disapproval of" or "play down".  With the 
amount of dissent found here about having a public constructor, I would 
think "expressing disapproval" of making it public is perfectly 
justified.  It is not recommended for anyone to construct an instance of 
a static utility class, thus deprecated.

I've expressed my views on deprecation here once a few times before. 
Here's one example:

although I am just one of many around here...  :)


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

View raw message