Here's the thread where the issue was discussed before: http://markmail.org/thread/fcbesctp6ifxtecs
As for the public fields, it was originally my intent that any Pair be immutable, and my take on final fields is that there is no reason not to make them public, particularly if, as in the case of an open ended utility class like Pair, it yields more compact code (something I personally strive for). In practice, I rarely program to the ImmutablePair type anymore since Pair.of() looks clearer, but is declared as returning Pair. The public fields, however, remain. :) Matt On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:15 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 October 2013 18:10, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All: > > > > Is there any reason we would want to keep ImmutablePair final? > > To stop mutable subclasses from being created? > > BTW, it's unfortunate that the fields are public; they should have > been private (there are public getters). > > > Gary > > > > -- > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition< > http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
