On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Matthew! > > agreed on such 3rd parties integrations you are speaking about, Google > Guice would suffer the same (I'm not a fan of Spring :P) > > Anyway, as you already mentioned, it is a matter of design, IMHO > subclassing those classes wouldn't have a lot of sense, since they are > used to implement a kind of "expression language" - I would be scared > if in my language I could change the semantic of my syntax... > > At the same time I wonder if it would make sense intercepting such > calls... didn't think to any valid example, do you have one? > > Since I'm not the original author of [functor] and I'm just providing > help to get it in a state to be released, better if more people are > involved before doing any action :P
Disclaimer: I am also not the original author, nor am I any master of FP... on the one hand, many of the complete algorithm/comparator/composite implementations provided by [functor] could probably be sensibly made final. On the other hand, applying this check to #equals(), #hashCode(), etc., seems pretty stupid. Maybe we should just turn it off. Matt > > Thanks for your feedbacks, have a nice day!!! > All the best, > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Matthew Pocock > <turingatemyhams...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Final classes don't always play well with things like aspects and dependency >> injection and other things that mangle bytecode or dynamically introduce >> subclasses/proxies (I'm thinking SPRING). Perhaps this is not an issue here. >> >> Should these classes be final? Taking the example of FoldLeft - are their >> circumstances where it would make sense to sub-class FoldLeft? Can it even >> be subclassed in a way that would produce something that behaved as a >> FoldLeft but over-wrote these flagged methods? >> >> Matthew >> >> On 23 August 2011 20:00, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi all guys, >>> in [functor] component there are several classes with checkstyle >>> errors[1] of the type >>> >>> Method 'XXXX' is not designed for extension - needs to be >>> abstract, final or empty. >>> >>> My opinion is that such classes should be final - but what someone >>> else thinks about it? >>> >>> TIA, all the best!!! >>> Simo >>> >>> [1] http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/functor/checkstyle.html >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr Matthew Pocock >> Visitor, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University >> mailto: turingatemyhams...@gmail.com >> gchat: turingatemyhams...@gmail.com >> msn: matthew_poc...@yahoo.co.uk >> irc.freenode.net: drdozer >> tel: (0191) 2566550 >> mob: +447535664143 >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
