Well you are right, though in the specific case I was refering to nothing was final. I tend to like to see such constants attached to a class that makes sense rather than collected in a constant bag. I'd also consider creating singlton objects that held the resource...
I was also thinking of the more extreme case where a person actually writes a bunch of non obj oriented code that does non-intializer type work and gets run at startup before main. I'm sure someone out there is doing that. There might even be a good reason for it... But I wouldn't call it a good or clean use of java. IMHO it would be a hack that was working around limitations of java if it was neccessary and just crappy code if it wasn't. At least that is my opinion. Gus "J.Pietschmann" wrote: > > Patrick (Gus) Heck wrote: > >>>...is like having methodless classes with only > >>>a static part... > > In fact a colleague of mine just ran into exactly this type of java file > > (written by someone else) in some code he is working with. Scary but > > there are people out there who do scary things! > > What's scary about them? In some circumstances Java > classes with only final static variables are a perfect > place for keeping magic constants, or hash tables (this > is where static initializers come into play). > I've seen this regularly in context of generated code. > > In the same sense I could imagine build files wich > only define properties, to be imported. But then, > it's a matter of taste whether you like them or not. > > J.Pietschmann > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
