Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4BEFC02A.2070906@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 11:51:38 +0200
From: Felix Knecht <felixk@apache.org>
Reply-To: felixk@apache.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100509 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Mutable Objects
References: <4BEE633D.6020906@otego.com> <4BEE8756.5010403@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BEE8756.5010403@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> I suggest to clone such data and return the clone instead.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>    
> This is not so simple. For instance, in the Value class, we returns the
> direct internal object for performance reasons. It should be checked
> case by case.

I can agree the performance reasons. OTOH it's a 'public' class which
may be used by other (third party) projects as well. For these projects
we will need to have either a big warning in the javadocs or to
implement it in a save way.

> 
> If we consider that the returned value is ok even if it's not a clone,
> then we should add a @suppressWarnig with a comment explaining why we
> are allowing such a behavior.
> 
> Otherwise, returning a clone is an option, another option being that we
> return an Immutable object, ie the interned object should be immutable
> (but this is more work).
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkvvwCkACgkQ2lZVCB08qHEN4wCgkIcD9v/hJ01z+is5WTgMbEK3
ROwAoJotkDX8difP4XkrZbzWlks1y30j
=ee07
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----