On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 12:06 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 09/09/2007, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > we currently have classes for defining parameter names and > > utility methods for setting/getting parameters in a set: > > > > o.a.h.p.HttpConnectionParams > > o.a.h.p.HttpProtocolParams > > o.a.h.nio.p.HttpNIOParams > > o.a.h.auth.p.AuthParams > > o.a.h.cookie.p.CookieSpecParams > > o.a.h.conn.p.HttpConnParams > > o.a.h.client.p.HttpClientParams > > > > Since all constructors are disabled, it is not possible > > to combine these classes in a hierarchy. I would like to > > move the definition of parameter names into a separate > > set of interfaces, and to arrange these interfaces in a > > hierarchy. And define an interface AllClientParamNames > > (or similar). > > The purpose is to allow users to locate parameters in the > > JavaDocs without being familiar with our "informal unit" > > structure. It's the last API change I have in store for > > core, and it would be a compatible one. > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > Are you proposing to define constants in the interfaces? > If so, then Joshua Bloch - he say no ;-) - see item 17 in Effective Java. > Interfaces should only be used for defining types, not for exporting > constants. >
I think that is mainly due to the fact that lots of people tend to abuse interface extension to be able to import all constants at once. Oleg > > cheers, > > Roland > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
