Hi
Am 08.08.2013 um 09:36 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> My proposal for final ...would be for classes exposing constants or utility
>> methods. Everything is
>> static in there...
>
> So, do I understand correctly that you o
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> My proposal for final ...would be for classes exposing constants or utility
> methods. Everything is
> static in there...
So, do I understand correctly that you only intend to make a class
final if a class only has static constants
Hi
On final and my proposal: The problem is extensibility, planning for
extensibility and inadvertent extensibility.
My proposal for final (if it would not break backwards compatibility which is
reason enough to not do it) would not hamper any consumers because it would be
for classes exposing
Hi
Am 06.08.2013 um 08:03 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> In general I'm fine with this, however as Justin noted adding "final "to
> some of the classes might break clients of Sling.
> Marking an interface as ConsumerType means also we shouldn't change it,
> right? (i'm fine with that, just clarifyin
On 6 August 2013 07:14, Ian Boston wrote:
>
> Finally, ;) , last time I read the java memory management docs and
> hotspot description, IIRC, final can prevent hotspot optimising the
> code, so some versions strip it or ignore it. I would have to find the
> detail to be certain of that.
>
[1] P
+1 to Javadoc.
I am tempted to -1 final, but I never say -1.
Every framework that has final, and doesn't do quite what is required
is a complete nightmare to use. I remember Hibernate in the early days
when everything was final, and nothing worked properly. It was
impossible to fix except by forki
In general I'm fine with this, however as Justin noted adding "final "to
some of the classes might break clients of Sling.
Marking an interface as ConsumerType means also we shouldn't change it,
right? (i'm fine with that, just clarifying)
Carsten
2013/8/5 Felix Meschberger
> Hi
>
> Am 05.08.2
Hi
Am 05.08.2013 um 19:48 schrieb Justin Edelson:
> Hi Felix,
> +1 to all of this.
>
> Out of curiosity, would adding the final keyword require a major version
> bump? It isn't backwards compatible, but is perhaps an interesting grey
> area.
Yes, technically, this is binary incompatible because
Hi Felix,
+1 to all of this.
Out of curiosity, would adding the final keyword require a major version
bump? It isn't backwards compatible, but is perhaps an interesting grey
area.
Justin
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi all
>
> While working on SLING-2944 [1] it oc
+1
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Amit.. Gupta. wrote:
> +1
>
> Regards,
> Amit
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Felix Meschberger [mailto:fmesc...@adobe.com]
> Sent: 05 August 2013 20:35
> To: dev@sling.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Consider implementors of Sling API
>
> Hi all
>
> W
+1
Regards,
Amit
-Original Message-
From: Felix Meschberger [mailto:fmesc...@adobe.com]
Sent: 05 August 2013 20:35
To: dev@sling.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Consider implementors of Sling API
Hi all
While working on SLING-2944 [1] it occurred to me that we do not currently take
good
11 matches
Mail list logo
