commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Rall <>
Subject Re: [lang] Summation [Was: [lang][collections] Utils having a public constructor]
Date Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:18:22 GMT
Henri Yandell <> writes:

> A bit hard to get a true feel for just what all the views were in that
> thread. I personally am +1 on having empty public constructors, but I
> think I'm in a very small minority so I've been keeping quiet.
> It seems that a workable compromise appears to be that XxxxUtils packages
> would have a protected deprecated empty constructor which does _not_ throw
> an exception.

Why deprecate the constructor?

> Is this something that users of Velocity can use? We're not just
> speculating wildly for a compromise which fails to fit users of such
> tools?

Velocity could use that given it provides an sub-class of StringUtils.
The same would be true for any other bean-esque system.  This is the
Right trade-off given it is not the use case the classes explicitly
are designed for.

Daniel Rall <>

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

View raw message