--- Neil O'Toole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At first glance I don't really see the `need to override > > behavior' > > argument -- if a user doesn't like the way a static method is > > implemented, can't they just implement their own in a separate class? > > > > Absolutely. I don't see any reason why utility methods should be > overridden.
But other people *will* see a need, guaranteed. It's a rather limited view to think that no one could ever possibly want to extend your classes. This lesson has been learned the hard way in BeanUtils and in Struts so I encourage you to rethink this strategy. David > If a method doesn't do what it says it does, it's broken > and should be fixed in the next release. If you need the utility method > to do something else, then it should have a different name to > distinguish the funtional difference. > > Also, why would you ever need to extend non-instantiable classes? > > - Neil > > > --- Michael Heuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, David Graham wrote: > > > > > --- Arun Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hmmm.... From the last three notes - I think I understand > > clearly the > > > > motivation for requiring the public no-arg constructor, but I > > still > > > > don't understand the reasoning behind the need for avoiding > > final. The > > > > only reason I can see (with possibly poor vision) is to allow > > access to > > > > the methods of the utility class plus additional specific methods > > with > > > > a handle on only one class object or utility instance (of the > > subclass > > > > utility). This seems to me to be very poor design if such a > > constraint > > > > exists. Can anyone see any other value to extending utility > > classes > > > > with entirely static methods? > > > > > > Because static methods can't be overridden you may as well declare > > them > > > final. However, static methods are truly evil. As soon as you > > think no > > > one will ever need to override the behavior, some user will come > > along > > > with a need to do so. This happened in Struts and now we're > > replacing all > > > the static methods with Singleton classes with instance methods. > > > > Is the struts mailing list the best place to go archive-digging on > > this > > topic? At first glance I don't really see the `need to override > > behavior' > > argument -- if a user doesn't like the way a static method is > > implemented, can't they just implement their own in a separate class? > > > > michael > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > -AMT > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:44 AM > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > Subject: RE: [io][vote] FileUtils: decision on style > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Arun Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Can someone expound on this "lesson"? The Developers Guide > > mentions > > > > > neither the rule that "final" should be avoided, nor the rule > > that a > > > > > public constructor is required. I'd love to know the reasoning > > - is > > > > > there some reason that actually derives from the constraints of > > lang, > > > > > or is it due to constraints on how other systems use lang? I'm > > > > > particularly confounded by why the use of final would be a > > problem. > > > > > > > > Marking a class as final prevents subclassing which is an > > > > extraordinarily bad idea in generally available framework > > classes. This > > > > also goes for methods. Classes without default constructors are > > not > > > > JavaBeans and thus cannot be dynamically created and used in > > certain > > > > environments. > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > -AMT > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 5:55 AM > > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > > Subject: Re: [io][vote] FileUtils: decision on style > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey thanks for the heads up! > > > > > > > > > > > > being one of the original authors/contributor of this class, > > I do > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > some comments (mostly in favour of your proposal)... > > > > > > > > > > > > 1rst: you seem to have added a private constructor to prevent > > > > > > instantiation, which hurts usage as in velocity, where you > > need an > > > > > > instance of a class to allow the introspection to work. I'm > > -1 for > > > > > > that change in CVS. > > > > > > > > > > Yep. This is a Lang-lesson. Have an empty constructor in every > > 'Utils' > > > > > > > > > class which mentions in a javadoc that this is not intended to > > be > > > > > used: > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > * <p><code>ObjectUtils</code> instances should NOT be > > constructed > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > * standard programming. Instead, the class should be used > > as > > > > > * <code>ObjectUtils.defaultIfNull("a","b");</code>.</p> > > > > > * > > > > > * <p>This constructor is public to permit tools that > > require a > > > > > JavaBean instance > > > > > * to operate.</p> > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > Also worth looking at and maybe adopting the relatively simple: > > > > > DEVELOPERS-GUIDE.html in Lang. Mainly it just outlines the > > XxxUtils > > > > > philosophy. > > > > > > > > > > Also don't make XxxUtils a final class. > > > > > > > > > > Hen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
