[lang][collections] Utils having a public constructor

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> I actually quite strongly dislike making the constructor public. Its
> basically a flaw in Velocity that we're coding for.
>
> However, in the spirit of cooperation, I am willing to see a public
> constructor. However, I want it to be deprecated. The deprecation won't
> affect tools like Velocity that instantiate it by Class.newInstance(), but
> will cause ordinary programmers to realise that they are using the class
> wrongly.

Jason/Geir, is this acceptable?

>
> Also, if we do this to one static utility class, we do it to all. That means
> changing the [lang] developers guide and making the changes. It also affects
> [collections] and [pattern]

Agreed. We either go one way or the other. With the 'spirit of
cooperation' I aimed to do the minimal number of changes necessary.

Collections peoples... what is your viewpoint?

Hen


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>