On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:25:22 -0800, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 11/13/13 2:31 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:44:13 -0800, Phil Steitz wrote:
The implementation of this method has been replaced by the
MathArrays extracted version, but deprecating and subsequently
removing it from AbstractUnivariateStatistic eliminates the ability
of subclasses to override and implement their own input array
validation methods. I am -0 on removing that flexibility. Anyone
mind if I remove the deprecation on this method?
What is a use-case for implementing the contract of those methods in
more than one way?
The use case is not a different implementation of the default array
validation provided by the MathArrays version in
AbstractUnivariateStatistic, but to allow different contracts. For
example, some implementations may be able to handle NaN weights or
to allow the length parameter to extend beyond the end of the array
(interpreting that to mean just all elements beyond the start
point). Also, the fact that the test method is *always* called
before evaluation makes it a convenient extension point for other
kinds of parameter validation. In any of these cases, the contract
itself would be changed in the override. The point of leaving it in
is to allow the flexibility to change the contract / behavior of the
method that checks the input array for validity.
I fear that it would be fairly confusing to change the contract:
suppose
public AbstractUnivariateStatistic getStat() {
return new StatWithAnotherContract();
}
-> the caller who reads the Javadoc of "AbstractUnivariateStatistic"
will
get wrong informations about the behaviour of the returned instance.
I wonder whether a "validator" class should not be passed as an
argument
to the AbstractUnivariateStatistic constructor...
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
