commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] NON-RESULT (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:20:42 GMT
On 8/19/02 7:58 PM, "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

> Well, surprise, surprise we still don't actually have a decision....
> 
> I am calling a halt to the current vote, because
> 1) New options are now being discussed
> 2) Most of the people who voted in the first vote haven't voted in the
> second vote
> 
> The results of the legitimate votes that were cast are:
> "protected constructor" =>  -1
> "deprecated public constructor" => 3
> 
> If all options were considered, and views expressed considered as votes
> however:
> "protected constructor" =>  -2
> "deprecated public constructor" => 2
> "public" => 1
> "public final" => 3
> "bean wrappers" => 2
> 
> To declare any _result_ would thus be unreasonable.
> 
> IMO however I would suggest that
> - protected is being discounted
> - support for a positive response to Velocity is growing (ie. something
> public)

LOL.  Could we stop saying it's due to Velocity?  You would have the same
issue in anything that expects bean-ish lifecycle behavior of the components
it uses.

> 
> I will have one more go at this. But not yet. Paul's "public final" option
> strikes me as being a compromise that I think 90% would support, either +1
> or +0. Unless the discussion changes markedly, the next vote will probably
> offer that as the only choice. (Yes or No)

 public final tends to piss people off.  See java.lang.Class and
java.lang.String and org.webmacro.*


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. 
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713



--
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