commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [pool] drop Base(Keyed)ObjectPool?
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:22:09 GMT
On 9/19/11 1:08 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 9/18/11 2:43 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Sure. I was under the Impression that 2 subclasses reused the fields.
>> Well, they (GOP, GKOP and others) do use the closed field; but IMO
>> that is not enough justification for the complexity of having them
>> there and the ugliness of the UnsupportedOperationExceptions and
>> nonsense values returned in the base implementations of pool stats.
>> So, I will go ahead and remove the base classes.
> Or simply use abstract classes and keep only the relevant code?

That would make sense if there were a nontrivial amount of useful
code to keep or if we wanted to get rid of the interfaces.  I don't
see either of those as compelling.  Do you? 

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

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

View raw message