commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:11:01 GMT

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:

> > I don't find it funny (I know you don't),
> > it would be a *big* failure for Commons :-/
> We spent a week and 100 mails to argue about a trivial thing
> that would clearly allow a jakarta project to use that code.
> We hear all the 'code purity' arguments - and that for some
> code that uses static methods and is not extensible in the
> first place.
> My only question is who uses the code right now. Because
> my vote will be -1 on any project I'm involved with to use
> it - this lack of compromise and attitude is not a good
> sign.

I disagree. Its shown that its an issue that is important to people, that
the submitted StringUtils [and I assume other submitted Utils classes]
failed to document their full needs. As it was the classes are plain Util
classes and another email has documented that there are existing patterns
of this [Bloch] which state a private constructor.

You have seen nothing but an attempt to compromise. Suggestions of static
instances, of extensions, of deprecation, of final are all attempts at
compromise. It's been a heated debate yes, and one which has failed to
reach a compromise, but large parts were learning about Velocity abilities
and ideas which died due to being too high maintainance.


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

View raw message