DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 New Preferences Architecture ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-09-19 12:42 ------- Hello Mike, > Is there even a case to share the same instance of a params object between > multiple methods/clients? If not, perhaps the constructor should always > make copies. I intend to create params objects from my servlets's configuration, and to use them to create all methods affected by that configuration. The idea of having a constructor that accepts a params object was to avoid creating default params that get replaced immediately afterwards. Copying params in the constructor would leave me without a chance to avoid additional object creation, even though the one I pass in is exactly the one I want to be used by the method. > I would suggest a copy constructor along with/instead of Cloneable as > cloning can be a little ugly. Good point. I support "along with". Cloning has the advantage that you do not need to know the exact class of the object you're dealing with. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
