Logically - makes sense. Make 'em final.
Realistically - the finality of String and friends is an immense pain
and led us to ugly Utils classes and lots of non-OO style code.
I wonder if we can contain your BigDecimal logic in some way. My
initial thoughts though end up much like the Cloneable ma
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> On 18 May 2011 18:09, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> See the EvilFoo example above. Any ability to subclass, even with safe
>> methods, means its not completely thread-safe.
>
> More info:
>
> StringBuilder evilBuf = new StringBuilder();
On 18 May 2011 18:09, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> See the EvilFoo example above. Any ability to subclass, even with safe
> methods, means its not completely thread-safe.
More info:
StringBuilder evilBuf = new StringBuilder();
EvilFoo evilFoo = new EvilFoo(evilBuf);
doStuff(evilFoo);
// evilFoo
On 18 May 2011 17:58, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Stephen Colebourne
> wrote:
>> This issue about what immutable means wrt "final" on the class has
>> bounced around a few threads.
>>
>> In my view, immutable has a specific meaning, whereby the object is
>> unequivicall
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> This issue about what immutable means wrt "final" on the class has
> bounced around a few threads.
>
> In my view, immutable has a specific meaning, whereby the object is
> unequivically safe to use and share between threads. To do so,
This issue about what immutable means wrt "final" on the class has
bounced around a few threads.
In my view, immutable has a specific meaning, whereby the object is
unequivically safe to use and share between threads. To do so, there
are certain rules. One that is disputed is whether the class mus
