On 9/11/11 12:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have very > carefully been decorated with final and volatile just in the right places?
There is only one field being maintained and I think it would actually be clearer to push it into the (small number of) remaining impls. > > What about dropping "Object" from the name? That makes even less sense now > that we have generics enabled. Well, generic or no, what we pool r objects ;) Phil > > Gary > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> These classes really do nothing other than maintain the boolean >> "closed", throwing UnsupportedOperationException or returning >> nonsense for most methods. The interfaces define contracts, so why >> do we really need these base classes? >> >> Phil >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
