On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:23:46 GMT, Andy Goryachev <ango...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I'd like someone else to weigh in on this. If this were a `Set` that >> eventually would be publicly accessible somewhere (by normal FX users) I'd >> definitely not want this. In this case however, it is (for now at least) >> only used internally, so I don't care much if it has a message -- just be >> aware the users might see this if this class ever **does** get exposed (like >> `BitSet` was). >> >> I also don't understand your point about man hours saved and cognitive load. >> The message is perfectly clear, you can't call that method, and the reason >> is clearly documented, and in the context of collections, it means the set >> cannot be mutated (by you). The creator of the set should be well aware that >> the set is read only after being frozen. Any external class that it is being >> exposed to does not need to be aware of how this is achieved (the method >> that you get it from will clearly say it is an "immutable set" or some >> such). A message about the set being frozen will just be confusing (What >> does frozen mean? How do I unfreeze it? Who froze it? Why is this `Set` >> special from other unmodifiable sets which don't mention this?) > > It's a very minor point, John. The exception by itself answers the question > of "what" happened, but not "why". All I suggest is to explain "why". > > But again, it's just a minor suggestion. I'm not sure there is a need, but if text is added, it should be something simple like "Unmodifiable set". I would _not_ use the word "freeze" since there is no such concept in the API. From the POV of the application, the set is unmodifiable. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1316#discussion_r1520031043
