On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/11 12:44 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > 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? > > There is only one field being maintained and I think it would > actually be clearer to push it into the (small number of) remaining > impls. > > > > > What about dropping "Object" from the name? That makes even less sense > now > > that we have generics enabled. > > Well, generic or no, what we pool r objects ;) > As opposed to what? Primitives? ;) Seriously, it seems superfluous. I thought the name originated in the fact that the pool was typed to use java.lang.Object as opposed to more specific types. The name could be justified in my mind then, but not with the use of generics. My 2c, Gary > > Phil > > > > 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 > >> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
