commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:55:34 GMT
On 8/22/02 9:24 AM, "Henri Yandell" <> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Wouldn't that be funny, forking code that came from Turbine/Velocity so we
>>> can use it in Turbine/Velocity?
>> I don't find it funny (I know you don't),
>> it would be a *big* failure for Commons :-/
>> Guess why the Avalon project has been reluctant to move stuff in Commons...
> It's an issue whenever you submit code to anywhere. The maintainers of the
> code once submitted do not have solely your interests at heart and are not
> able to predict exactly where you want to take the code in the future.
> On the other side, the submitter is no longer having to maintain the code.
> If projects that submit code, Jakarta or not, were using bad concepts in a
> piece of code that is submitted, then improvement by Commons would be a
> *big* success and not a big failure. The only issue here is that there is
> debate over whether it is an improvement.
> Can you point everyone to the threads on this subject on the submitting
> projects in which they discussed not having a private constructor on those
> classes, or was it just so obvious that no one ever questioned it?

In the case of string utils, they couldn't even be *used* if they had a
private CTOR.  It wasn't even a rational question in context.

Geir Magnusson Jr. 
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.

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

View raw message