On 10/12/10 3:14 PM, sebb wrote:
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
+1
Phil
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
