On 12 October 2010 20:02, Gary Gregory <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:28 >> To: Commons Developers List >> Subject: [pool] can the factory field ever usefully be null? >> >> Now that the setFactory() methods have been removed, and the factories >> made immutable, does it still make sense to ever allow a null factory? >> >> Some places still check for null, some assume non-null. >> There are also some ctors which set the factory to null. >> >> Seems to me that the factory field needs to be final and non-null; the >> ctor should enfore non-null, and then there is no further need to >> check it for null. > > Then we can remove ctors that do not specify a factory. For example: > GenericObjectPool()
Yes, and StackKeyedObjectPool() StackKeyedObjectPool(int) StackKeyedObjectPool(int,int) Also SoftReferenceObjectPool() - already deprecated and marked for removal > Gary > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
