On 28 November 2013 12:34, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Le 28/11/2013 13:01, Gary Gregory a écrit : >> This backward IMO and an anti-pattern: an interface should only define a >> contract for a service, not constants. > > I know, but that's more idiomatic than a class with only public static > final fields.
Why? That seems like quite a sensible use of a class; definitely better than using an interface. In any case, the intention needs to be documented in the source file. We only release source files; documentation that is in SCM logs or mailing lists is useless. > The class is private now, so it doesn't matter much. We can improve that > as we like later. Surely an interface is effectively public? > Emmanuel > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
