Hi Hen,
Henri Yandell wrote:
> The enum is less to do with Android and more to do with the float and
> int APIs being bizarre. The enum is to have something more useable.
>
> We could drop the enum and just go with String values.
or use methods. I can see Niall's point if you use the enum in a
I like this the best:
http://api.dpml.net/openjdk/module/20070627/java/module/Version.html
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> The enum is less to do with Android and more to do with the float and
> int APIs being bizarre. The enum is to have something more useable.
>
> We co
The enum is less to do with Android and more to do with the float and
int APIs being bizarre. The enum is to have something more useable.
We could drop the enum and just go with String values.
Hen
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> I have no philosophical problem with
> -Original Message-
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 16:30
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: [lang] enum for Java Version [was svn commit: r1065174 - ...]
>
> IMO this is a really bad idea. Enum's shouldn't ever change, sinc
I don't understand. Is the enum changing values or is it just getting new
values? The latter is perfectly acceptable. The JDK adds new enum values
where required too, but it won't reorder them or delete existing ones.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> IMO this is a really
I have no philosophical problem with adding to an enum in a later
release, its designed to be compatible (don't persist the ordinal).
However, I'm unconvinced that an enum is the right solution here. I
should probably study the details, but if Android is broken perhaps
thats just how it is.
Stephen
