commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@generationjava.com>
Subject [lang] Action-taken [Was: StringUtils constructor is private]
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:43:47 GMT

Resolution:

I've built a version of the beta with StringUtils having a public
constructor. Jason should be testing it out at some point soon to let me
know if I screwed up.

My reasoning is:

1) I don't want to hold up another project's release wit such a minor
issue.

2) I simply replaced the existing beta downloads as I don't believe that
this represents a noticable API change. If I'm wrong, please show me that
so I can hang my head in utter dejectedness. [I do have copies of the old
downloads in my home directory, give me an ounce of credit :) ]

I'm happily in the camp that there is no need to have a private
constructor on a Utils class. I'm a believer in only doing the
private-thang when you want to protect something.

On a more generalised note, what is holding us back from making all the
Utils have public constructors as a convention? I know it has a certain
feel of 'well why can't they just call it statically', but Geir's point is
valid, it's not just a Velocity thing but something a small chunk of
projects could conceivably have.

Does the private XxxUtils convention gain us anything? What do we care if
someone makes an instance? It's ugly, but they're choosing the ugly.


[oh, and a sidenote for Jason. [lang] in the title please :) ]

Hen


--
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