But I agree that only very few people/usecase would write codes which extending the *Util classes.
Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月6日周日 下午9:53写道： > > Inheritance in Java on the static side is > not the same as on the instance side > > Yep, I know it. It will not override but just, hiding. > I admit it might confuse people sometimes. > > > subclassing a class that only > provides static methods is no help. > > Well actually I personally use it for a shortcut or something. > Of course we can do this by fork/wrap the static functions one by one, but > extending it directly can make the codes shorter. > > Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月6日周日 下午9:48写道： > >> 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? >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
