commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool] drop Base(Keyed)ObjectPool?
Date Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:43:12 GMT
Sure. I was under the Impression that 2 subclasses reused the fields.

Gary

On Sep 18, 2011, at 17:39, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/11/11 12:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have very
>> carefully been decorated with final and volatile just in the right places?
>
> Given that there is only one field being maintained, are you OK with
> dropping these, Gary?
>
> Phil
>>
>> What about dropping "Object" from the name? That makes even less sense now
>> that we have generics enabled.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> These classes really do nothing other than maintain the boolean
>>> "closed", throwing UnsupportedOperationException or returning
>>> nonsense for most methods.  The interfaces define contracts, so why
>>> do we really need these base classes?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message