Hi Julius! I am not a fan of these interfaces because they are not typed, "Object encode(Object)" is too vague now that Generics have been an option for years.
The interfaces are a good idea if you want to process the same data with similar but different codecs and use the same code. So there is value there. Please see the recent discussion on adding generics to [codec] where I propose "<O> encode(<I>)" Gary On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Julius Davies <juliusdav...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > What do people think of the Encoder / Decoder interface in > commons-codec? Do people use it? > > I know in my own usage patterns of commons-codec, I always go straight > for the concrete class that I want, and I never make use of the > Encoder / Decoder interface. > > > I'm in grad school right now, and one of the things I'm doing is > analyzing every jar, zip, tar, and war in the Maven2 central > repository. I could take a look to try and find out how often jars > that depend on commons-codec inside Maven2 make use of the Encoder / > Decoder interfaces. Of course it doesn't tell us anything about > proprietary systems or other systems that are not in Maven2, but it is > a pretty big collection of Java these days, might be interesting. > > > > -- > yours, > > Julius Davies > 604-222-3310 (Home) > > $ sudo apt-get install cowsay > $ echo "Moo." | cowsay | cowsay -n | cowsay -n > http://juliusdavies.ca/cowsay/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
