Perhaps we want to keep the ivars in one place since they all have very carefully been decorated with final and volatile just in the right places?
What about dropping "Object" from the name? That makes even less sense now that we have generics enabled. Gary On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > These classes really do nothing other than maintain the boolean > "closed", throwing UnsupportedOperationException or returning > nonsense for most methods. The interfaces define contracts, so why > do we really need these base classes? > > Phil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://s.apache.org/rl Spring Batch in Action: http://s.apache.org/HOq Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
