>
> For us, we were overriding some of the swing classes, and the somewhere
> down the road more methods were added to the base class. Getting the code
> to compile was not too hard - but this was code that was last likely
> touched over 5 years ago and we did not have the expertise in house. So it
> just meant more time needed to be spent to resurrect the code.
>
That's exactly the reason why the .NET authors decided against
virtual-by-default like in Java.
Interesting subject though. I reckon all of us in here have written our own
domain-less StringUtils, NumberUtils, DateUtils etc. which are obvious
candidates for reuse. Especially since extension methods are now on its way
into Java!
I realize Maven, NuGet etc. lets us easily pick down packages we know. But
what about the whole discovery problem? How would we
better benefit from each-others work?!
Perhaps via metadata:
@Supplements(java.util.Date.class)
static class DateUtils{
static Pair<Date, Date> getWeekSpan(Date date, Locale locale){
...
}
}
Whoops, now we need a Pair class... so I'd argue the problem is not how to
reuse, the problem is how to easily find, and link, the stuff we can reuse.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/WFRNRcKRU9IJ.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
