EntityCondition, javolution ObjectFactory, immutability

[Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>]

I noticed that Adrian removed most of javolution from the entity engine, 
just over a year ago.  One of the uses was the ObjectFactory pattern.  
That is good.  However, that change still made use of generic do-nothing 
constructors, and init() helper methods.

Is there any particular reason to keep doing things that way?  I'd like 
to see conditions become immutable; it would prevent thinkos like I have 
discovered while investigating OFBIZ-5659.

Re: EntityCondition, javolution ObjectFactory, immutability

[Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>]

Most likely, I was trying to keep the commit specific to removing 
Javolution, so I didn't make any other changes.

Aside from removing Javolution, I did some other work to make parts of 
the EE immutable. I didn't finish that work because some parts of the EE 
would require major rewrites, and also because I ran out of free time.

Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com

On 6/18/2014 3:53 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> I noticed that Adrian removed most of javolution from the entity engine,
> just over a year ago.  One of the uses was the ObjectFactory pattern.
> That is good.  However, that change still made use of generic do-nothing
> constructors, and init() helper methods.
>
> Is there any particular reason to keep doing things that way?  I'd like
> to see conditions become immutable; it would prevent thinkos like I have
> discovered while investigating OFBIZ-5659.