Sure. I was under the Impression that 2 subclasses reused the fields. Gary
On Sep 18, 2011, at 17:39, 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? > > Given that there is only one field being maintained, are you OK with > dropping these, Gary? > > Phil >> >> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
