commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jack, Paul" <>
Subject RE: [VOTE] (3b) XxxUtilsConstructors last chance
Date Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:15:17 GMT
> I think the inner class solution is better than the wrapper. 
> Zero maintenance. Although I think having an inner class that 
> exists solely to provide a public constructor that the outer 
> doesn't provide is silly.

Holy Moses -- I agree.

> The inner class and wrapper have all of the disadvantages 
> marshaled against having a public constructor in StringUtils. 
> Why not just have the public constructor, rather than a work 
> around that provides almost the same thing?

Indeed, someone could just as easily create an API collision
via the inner class bean as they could with the root class.
Having the inner class bean would at least show people that
we originally wanted the constructor to be private, and might
steer them away from using said constructor.  However...

> Deprecating the public constructor, with a note explaining 
> that you probably don't need to use it, is, I think, a good 
> solution.  Deprecating it will warn naive users, while still 
> allowing those who actually need it to use it. But it isn't 
> deprecated because it's planned to be removed, or because 
> those who need it should move to a different API. It's deprecated 
> because it should only be used in very particular, somewhat 
> unusual, circumstances.

I agree.  (Who are you, and what have you done with Steve Downey?)


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

View raw message