Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:20:44 +0200
From: Gilles Sadowski <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Math] Issues 650, 675, 676
Message-ID: <20111010112043.GQ17021@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@commons.apache.org
References: <20110929160431.GA17388@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
 <CAOGo0VYODBH08S2_2CwyTBrwsKAboY9oBwt6CYZHQF86ev_YOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110930220329.GN17021@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
 <CAOGo0VZsfc8cNHNc6LTLOLH1i1NxgarPHZYnQH9Y3M3UNR+w-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111009171612.GL17021@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
 <CAOGo0VZQs3Dm1zvJX052h-gN4C-odJDibPn3KRE_TE+w8r6HOw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOGo0VZQs3Dm1zvJX052h-gN4C-odJDibPn3KRE_TE+w8r6HOw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: sif 20002; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.1-exp at sif
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 03:26:01AM +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 18:16, Gilles Sadowski <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> 
> >> This is slightly different from the original suggestion; IIRC that did
> >> not include using getters.
> >
> > I put getters because you asked them. But, indeed, there is no difference
> > with direct accessing the arrays since the getters do not return a copy: it
> > is possible to modify the "original" array.
> 
> Those are *not* the getters I was referring to.
> 
> I intended the getter to return an array element, not the array, so as
> to protect the array contents.

Don't you think that it will make the access much slower?

> As you point out, there's absolutely no point having the getter otherwise.
> 
> The current implementation is not particularly secure against
> malicious or accidental tampering.

The only tampering could come from a bug in classes in the same package. OR
do I miss something?

> That is why I left the arrays in the same source file originally, as
> it allows the arrays to be automatically protected, without needing a
> getter.

Yes I understand the argument. Mine is that this data should not be stored
there.


Gilles

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