On 05/01/2014 03:39 PM, sebb wrote: > On 1 May 2014 14:21, Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 05/01/2014 03:03 PM, sebb wrote: >>> On 1 May 2014 12:05, <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> Author: tn >>>> Date: Thu May 1 11:04:59 2014 >>>> New Revision: 1591602 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1591602 >>>> Log: >>>> [COLLECTIONS-519] Constructors of *Utils classes are now protected to >>>> allow sub-classing. Thanks to Radoslav Paskalev, Daniel Feist. >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> I don't think this is a good idea. >>> >>> See my comments on the JIRA issue. >> >> I consider this to be a compromise considering the fact that previously >> the util classes all had a public constructor. >> >> So when people are migrating from 3.2.1 to 4.0, they have some troubles. >> To ease the migration I thought that making it protected is safe: >> >> * it can not be instantiated > > Surely it is now instantiable via a sub-class? > >> * if somebody wants to sub-class: at your own risk, like before >> >> The composition approach is the right way to go, and I would personally >> never do something like the issue originator. > > The problem we have is that if 4.1 now allows sub-classing, how can we > ever drop it? > > We need to grab the opportunity of 4.x to fix all these bad coding practises. > > Conversion to 4.x will amyway require some effort on the part of users. > Let's not spoil the API for all for the sake of a few.
As long as there was only 1 guy requesting this, I had the same opinion as you (and I already wanted to close the issue as Wont fix). But who knows how many people/projects have done the same and now want to migrate to collections 4 and are facing this issue. If there is too much trouble upgrading to collections 4, they might also switch to guava, which I have seen a couple of times already. Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
