That is why I love Lombok's @UtilityClass.
https://projectlombok.org/features/experimental/UtilityClass
It enforces a static class is truly static by making the constructor
private and throwing an exception, making sure all methods are static,
marking the class as Final etc.
On 9/6/2020 9:53 AM, Xeno Amess wrote:
Inheritance in Java on the static side is
not the same as on the instance side
Yep, I know it. It will not override but just, hiding.
I admit it might confuse people sometimes.
subclassing a class that only
provides static methods is no help.
Well actually I personally use it for a shortcut or something.
Of course we can do this by fork/wrap the static functions one by one, but
extending it directly can make the codes shorter.
Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月6日周日 下午9:48写道：
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 9:44 AM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> wrote:
The idea behind not making *Util constructors private is that it makes
people be able to extend that class.
for example:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/lang3/StringUtils.java#L9627
I have not see a use case that requires instances of classes that only
provide static methods in a long time, like the Javadoc mentions, there
used to be JavaBean tools that needed this, and some UI builders IIRC, but
I do not see a case of it today. Inheritance in Java on the static side is
not the same as on the instance side, so subclassing a class that only
provides static methods is no help.
Gary
Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月6日周日 下午9:39写道：
The idea behind making *Util constructors private is that it does not
make
sense to instantiate a class that only has static methods.
Gary
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 12:49 AM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com>
wrote:
for example: can we make its constructor public instead of private?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
