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] (3b) XxxUtilsConstructors last chance
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:03:57 GMT
On 8/21/02 7:30 PM, "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

> 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
>> [  ] -0  I don't like it, but won't block it
>> [XXXX] -1 I disagree

What possible good would that do you?

>> 
>> 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

These classes were *ORIGINALLY* used as beans, hence public contructors.

>> - The compromise gives public constructors to satisfy the bean based tools
>> and final to keep the utilities from being abused by subclassing

What kind of abuse are you imagining here?  I'm behind in my reading, but if
you are going to offer summaries like the above (thanks, by the way) the
details would help...


-- 
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