Eric Jablow wrote:
Brian Goetz, in an article last year for IBM DeveloperWorks, suggested writing a set wrapper that would allow initialization code like:private final static Set COMMANDS = new UnmodifiableSetBuilder(new HashSet()) .append("Save") .append("Revert") .append("Close") .unmodifiableSet(); instead of the wordier but normal private final static Set COMMANDS; // Blank final static { Set tempCommands = new HashSet(); tempCommands.add("Save"); tempCommands.add("Revert"); tempCommands.add("Close"); COMMANDS = Collections.unmodifiableSet(tempCommands); }
This is an interesting idea. I would have thought that a single SetBuilder that could produce a modifiable as well as an unmodifiable set would make more sense.
My concern is whether this is too specific for commons-collections, or whether it is in fact exactly the kind of feature that we should provide. Opinions?
Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
