On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All: > > I added a test to verify the default Pair toString behavior. > > For me to replace our custom Pair class at work, I need to customize the to > String behavior. > > Subclassing ImmutablePair and MutablePair to override toString smells nasty. > > What about adding a formatString ivar which will be used with the > String.format API? >
If we must do anything like this it would seem that by the laws of dog food we would accept Builder<String>. That said, I'm finding it difficult to see a way to do this that doesn't seem equally offensive as the subclassing approach you've rejected. For a different subclassing approach you could implement toString() at a single point--a direct Pair subclass--and then reimplement mutable and immutable versions if you really needed both. Or if your toString() needs are nonspecific enough, maybe we can just use them--I'm not unduly attached to the current format. Matt > -- > Thank you, > Gary > > http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ > http://garygregory.com/ > http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ > http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
