commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Rall <...@finemaltcoding.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:53:41 GMT
Jesper de Jong <jespdj@yahoo.com> writes:

> ...
> > "use protected constructors for static utility
> > classes"
> > [  ] +1   I agree
> > [  ]  0   I don't like it, but could live with it
> > [XX] -1   I disagree
> 
> Static utility classes should not be instantiated.
> Adding protected constructors is a hack for the other
> projects which didn't use the utility classes in the
> first place. Those other projects can easily solve
> their problem by writing wrapper classes that call the
> real static utility class. Such a wrapper class does
> not need to subclass the static utility class so a
> protected constructor is not necessary.
> 
> > "use deprecated public constructors for static
> > utility classes"
> > [  ] +1   I agree
> > [XX]  0   I don't like it, but could live with it
> > [  ] -1   I disagree
> 
> If it's really not possible for those other projects
> to write simple wrapper classes, the existing public
> constructors should be made deprecated, so that it is
> clear for all future users that you shouldn't
> instantiate the class. This solution has the least
> impact for the dependent projects, because the
> interface of the utility classes doesn't change.

When you vote, please make clear that your vote is NON BINDING when
you have absolutely no commit access to any Jakarta projects.  Thank
you.
-- 

Daniel Rall <dlr@finemaltcoding.com>

--
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