These classes really do nothing other than maintain the boolean
"closed", throwing UnsupportedOperationException or returning
nonsense for most methods. The interfaces define contracts, so why
do we really need these base classes?
Phil
Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have very
carefully been decorated with final and volatile just in the right places?
What about dropping "Object" from the name? That makes even less sense now
that we have generics enabled.
Gary
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Phil
On 9/11/11 12:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have very
> carefully been decorated with final and volatile just in the right places?
There is only one field being maintained and I think it would
actually be clearer to push it into the (sma
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/11/11 12:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have very
> > carefully been decorated with final and volatile just in the right
> places?
>
> There is only one field being maintained
full support from my side on it, +1
I never understood the usefulness of these classes and they don't help
on writing concrete pool implementations.
Have a nice day, all the best!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz
Phil Steitz wrote:
>On 9/11/11 12:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have
>very
>> carefully been decorated with final and volatile just in the right
>places?
>
>There is only one field being maintained and I think it would
>actually be cle
On 9/11/11 12:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have very
> carefully been decorated with final and volatile just in the right places?
Given that there is only one field being maintained, are you OK with
dropping these, Gary?
Phil
>
> What
Sure. I was under the Impression that 2 subclasses reused the fields.
Gary
On Sep 18, 2011, at 17:39, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/11/11 12:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have very
>> carefully been decorated with final and volatile just
On 9/18/11 2:43 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Sure. I was under the Impression that 2 subclasses reused the fields.
Well, they (GOP, GKOP and others) do use the closed field; but IMO
that is not enough justification for the complexity of having them
there and the ugliness of the UnsupportedOperationEx
Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/18/11 2:43 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Sure. I was under the Impression that 2 subclasses reused the fields.
>
> Well, they (GOP, GKOP and others) do use the closed field; but IMO
> that is not enough justification for the complexity of having them
> there and the uglines
On 9/19/11 1:08 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/11 2:43 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Sure. I was under the Impression that 2 subclasses reused the fields.
>> Well, they (GOP, GKOP and others) do use the closed field; but IMO
>> that is not enough justification for the comp
11 matches
Mail list logo
