Le 11/08/2011 13:10, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
2011/8/11 sebb<seb...@gmail.com>:
2011/8/11 Sébastien Brisard<sebastien.bris...@m4x.org>:
OK, this I also think would be useful. But my initial question
remains, if the object I want to protect is not a RealVector, what do
you think of my solution ?
Sébastien
If you create the read-only version by subclassing the writable
version, then you have to ensure that all mutating methods are
overridden.
If a base class is later extended to add a new mutator, the protection is lost.
That's quite true... Didn't think of that. It pretty much ruins it, doesn't it?
You can also have a common interface without modification methods, and
two implementations, an immutable one and a mutable one (I think this is
how Scala containers are designed).
Luc
Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
