[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [collections] general problem with decorators
I like newInstance. Unlike defaultInstance, it clearly allocates a new
object. defaultInstance sounds singleton-y.
.T.
-Original Message-
From: __matthewHawthorne
this. Any patch volunteers?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Todd Jonker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [collections] general problem with decorators
volunteers?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Todd Jonker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [collections] general problem with decorators
I like
, October 03, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [collections] general problem with decorators
I like newInstance. Unlike defaultInstance, it clearly allocates a
new
object. defaultInstance sounds singleton-y.
.T.
-Original Message-
From: __matthewHawthorne [mailto:[EMAIL
This sounds OK, but what would the method be called?
OrderedSet.decorate()
OrderedSet.decorateHashSet()
?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Basically, the lack of empty constructors with default decoration
decisions. Example I'm looking at:
I want
I would prefer something like:
OrderedSet.defaultInstance()
or
OrderedSet.newInstance()
It seems more standard... what do you think?
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
This sounds OK, but what would the method be called?
OrderedSet.decorate()
OrderedSet.decorateHashSet()
?
Stephen
- Original
Basically, the lack of empty constructors with default decoration
decisions. Example I'm looking at:
I want an OrderedSet. The only way to get this is:
OrderedSet.decorate( new HashSet() )
[okay, could do TreeSet etc, also could use MapUtils].
I don't know about you, but this feels odd. :)