John
At 04:15 PM 29/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
In general, constants should be defined in the class they're relevant in. The Struts Globals constants used to be defined in Action; however, they're used in many places other than Action so it made sense to move them to the new Globals class.
David
--- Justin Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > A colleague of mine and I are discussing the relative merits of having > something like a Globals class. > I argue that it removes the constants from their proper association with > a > parent/owning class, ignoring the concept of object orientation and > losing a > self-documenting aspect regarding its relationship in the class > hierarchy. > By making the constants global they inherently lose scope, type > association, > and encapsulation. Another drawback is that you now have to flip between > two > JavaDocs pages when looking at a class and its constants. > My friend argues that it's easier to reference a Globals class when > programming since all constant Strings useful in the architecture are > collected within, and therefore this is reason enough to have a Globals > class (works great obviously with IDE auto-complete). > If anyone has the time or inclination to comment, what were the design > decisions that led to the Struts Globals class? > Thanks, > Justin >
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
