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 20:33:55 GMT
On 8/22/02 4:26 PM, "Henri Yandell" <> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> We don't really need a vote.  There never was a vote to move *from* public,
>> was there?
> There also wasn't a vote to change the name of a method. As the
> StringUtils class contained absolutely no documentation specifying that
> public() was important, and as it was considered to be a sandboxed
> component [therefore anyone dependent on it does so at their own risk]
> there was no reason to call a vote.

Are you suggesting we can change any method to private if it doesn't
explicitly state that it's important in the docs?

I bet that condition applies to *all* methods.

Of course, some of you might think that would probably be best - think of
the CPU cycle savings of having no public methods - no one would have the
opportunity to abuse the methods in string utils by calling them.

> Saying there should have been a vote is facetious and useless. I could
> equally say: "Why didn't the original coders question the public/private
> and put in some good documentation".
> Erm, I am being facetious and saying that. :) Oops.

Because the original coders created it to work in an environment where
instances could be created dynamically at runtime.  Commons didn't exist
then, and it wasn't considered that these tools would go out and be use to
try to create a commons framework.

It's yet another example of how you can't really predict who might come
along and use your code - therefore leaving as many open options as possible
is the best strategy in situations like this.

Geir Magnusson Jr. 
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.

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

View raw message