Re: [functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi Matthew, > DI is indeed a critical mass that today can not be ignored and since > Apache Commons provides by definition common reusable components, > [functor] has to be able as well to be easily adapted in a context > where DI is require

Re: [functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension

Hi Matthew, DI is indeed a critical mass that today can not be ignored and since Apache Commons provides by definition common reusable components, [functor] has to be able as well to be easily adapted in a context where DI is required. There is anyway a non trivial consideration: [functor] is a co

Re: [functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension

Hi, On 26 August 2011 20:06, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi Matt, > sorry for the late and for (maybe) silly question, but what's your PoV > about making classes Vs methods as 'final'? > If I lived in a world without dependency injection, then I'd favour final classes where I wanted to prevent sub-

Re: [functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension

Hi Matt, sorry for the late and for (maybe) silly question, but what's your PoV about making classes Vs methods as 'final'? Many thanks in advance, have a nice day!!! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > On W

Re: [functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi Matthew! > > agreed on such 3rd parties integrations you are speaking about, Google > Guice would suffer the same (I'm not a fan of Spring :P) > > Anyway, as you already mentioned, it is a matter of design, IMHO > subclassing those classe

Re: [functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension

Hi Matthew! agreed on such 3rd parties integrations you are speaking about, Google Guice would suffer the same (I'm not a fan of Spring :P) Anyway, as you already mentioned, it is a matter of design, IMHO subclassing those classes wouldn't have a lot of sense, since they are used to implement a k

Re: [functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension

Final classes don't always play well with things like aspects and dependency injection and other things that mangle bytecode or dynamically introduce subclasses/proxies (I'm thinking SPRING). Perhaps this is not an issue here. Should these classes be final? Taking the example of FoldLeft - are the

[functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension

Hi all guys, in [functor] component there are several classes with checkstyle errors[1] of the type Method '' is not designed for extension - needs to be abstract, final or empty. My opinion is that such classes should be final - but what someone else thinks about it? TIA, all the best!!