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, 11 Sep 2011 19:44:42 GMT
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?

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
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://s.apache.org/rl
Spring Batch in Action: http://s.apache.org/HOq
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message