On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:44 AM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea behind not making *Util constructors private is that it makes > people be able to extend that class. > for example: > > https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/StringUtils.java#L9627 I have not see a use case that requires instances of classes that only provide static methods in a long time, like the Javadoc mentions, there used to be JavaBean tools that needed this, and some UI builders IIRC, but I do not see a case of it today. Inheritance in Java on the static side is not the same as on the instance side, so subclassing a class that only provides static methods is no help. Gary > > Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月6日周日 下午9:39写道： > > > The idea behind making *Util constructors private is that it does not > make > > sense to instantiate a class that only has static methods. > > > > Gary > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 12:49 AM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > for example: can we make its constructor public instead of private? > > > > > >
