commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Rall <>
Subject Re: [lang][collections] Utils having a public constructor
Date Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:27:45 GMT
Henri Yandell <> writes:

> > > > Yes, that would work.  However, it would break compatibility for
> > > > anyone already using StringUtils.
> > >
> > > But StringUtils hasn't been released yet.  It's in beta, yes?
> > > And the beta version had a private constructor. ?
> >
> > Portions of the code frrom StringUtils came from the Turbine project
> > (and possibly JServ before that), and has been in production use for
> > years.
> To be fair, StringUtils has changed a lot and anyone dependent on the old
> turbine code would most likely have made themselves known a while back.
> Methods were renamed, or thrown away due to not being generic enough.

Yes, Turbine has had to scramble to keep up.  Code I'm responsible for
at work is quite behind the latest CVS because of the all changes.
The StringUtils -> Strings -> StringUtils goat rodeo was a real kicker.

> Lastly, this is not a StringUtils issue but a Commons.XXxxUtils issue. The
> current public() is there as a favour to Jason, but I'm anxious that a
> general Commons decision is made that we can all adhere to.


> Getting a decision on that is needed, StringUtils itself will just follow
> suit. The backwards compatibility only affects people if they have
> released a XxxUtils with a public constructor??

I am still for a protected ctor (because I see it as a reasonable
compromise based on the views expressed so far), but would like to
hear how many other XxxUtils have been released with a public ctor.

Daniel Rall <>

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

View raw message