commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: StringUtils constructor is private
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:44:27 GMT

I don't see many reasons why not. I should be able to easily sneak out a
replacement jar for the beta without making a song and dance about it,
it's not something that will break on anyone.

A bigger question, is why does it break things? I'm not a proponent of
privatising constructors without something to protect so am the easiest
person to convince, however if there's some kind of common tool which can
only handle instance methods [and statics by pretending they're instance]
then we should modify all Utils to have constructors unless absolutely

Is it a velocity thing?


On 11 Aug 2002, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> Hi,
> Can this be made public again? I upgrade a ton of things in Maven to use
> the b1 and it broke things all over the place. I have used
> StringUtils/Strings for a long time a tool inside a velocity context and
> the private constructor puts a bit of a damper on this. Can we make this
> public again?
> --
> jvz.
> Jason van Zyl
> In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
> and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
>   -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

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

View raw message