commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [pool] drop Base(Keyed)ObjectPool?
Date Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:36:40 GMT
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?

There is only one field being maintained and I think it would
actually be clearer to push it into the (small number of) remaining
impls.

>
> What about dropping "Object" from the name? That makes even less sense now
> that we have generics enabled.

Well, generic or no, what we pool r objects ;)

Phil
>
> 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


Mime
View raw message