commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Pocock <turingatemyhams...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [functor] Method 'XXX' is not designed for extension
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:25:35 GMT
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 their
circumstances where it would make sense to sub-class FoldLeft? Can it even
be subclassed in a way that would produce something that behaved as a
FoldLeft but over-wrote these flagged methods?

Matthew

On 23 August 2011 20:00, Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi all guys,
> in [functor] component there are several classes with checkstyle
> errors[1] of the type
>
>    Method 'XXXX' 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!!!
> Simo
>
> [1] http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/functor/checkstyle.html
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Dr Matthew Pocock
Visitor, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University
mailto: turingatemyhamster@gmail.com
gchat: turingatemyhamster@gmail.com
msn: matthew_pocock@yahoo.co.uk
irc.freenode.net: drdozer
tel: (0191) 2566550
mob: +447535664143

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message