commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gilles (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Updated: (MATH-349) Dangerous code in "PoissonDistributionImpl"
Date Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:31:27 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-349?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Gilles updated MATH-349:
------------------------

    Description: 
In the following excerpt from class "PoissonDistributionImpl":

{code:title=PoissonDistributionImpl.java|borderStyle=solid}
    public PoissonDistributionImpl(double p, NormalDistribution z) {
        super();
        setNormal(z);
        setMean(p);
    }
{code}

(1) Overridable methods are called within the constructor.
(2) The reference "z" is stored and modified within the class.

I've encountered problem (1) in several classes while working on issue 348. In those cases,
in order to remove potential problems, I copied/pasted the body of the "setter" methods inside
the constructor but I think that a more elegant solution would be to remove the "setters"
altogether (i.e. make the classes immutable).
Problem (2) can also create unexpected behaviour. Is it really necessary to pass the "NormalDistribution"
object; can't it be always created within the class?


  was:
In the following excerpt from class "PoissonDistributionImpl":
---CUT---
    public PoissonDistributionImpl(double p, NormalDistribution z) {
        super();
        setNormal(z);
        setMean(p);
    }
---CUT---

(1) Overridable methods are called within the constructor.
(2) The reference "z" is stored and modified within the class.

I've encountered problem (1) in several classes while working on issue 348. In those cases,
in order to remove potential problems, I copied/pasted the body of the "setter" methods inside
the constructor but I think that a more elegant solution would be to remove the "setters"
altogether (i.e. make the classes immutable).
Problem (2) can also create unexpected behaviour. Is it really necessary to pass the "NormalDistribution"
object; can't it be always created within the class?



> Dangerous code in "PoissonDistributionImpl"
> -------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MATH-349
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-349
>             Project: Commons Math
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Gilles
>            Priority: Minor
>
> In the following excerpt from class "PoissonDistributionImpl":
> {code:title=PoissonDistributionImpl.java|borderStyle=solid}
>     public PoissonDistributionImpl(double p, NormalDistribution z) {
>         super();
>         setNormal(z);
>         setMean(p);
>     }
> {code}
> (1) Overridable methods are called within the constructor.
> (2) The reference "z" is stored and modified within the class.
> I've encountered problem (1) in several classes while working on issue 348. In those
cases, in order to remove potential problems, I copied/pasted the body of the "setter" methods
inside the constructor but I think that a more elegant solution would be to remove the "setters"
altogether (i.e. make the classes immutable).
> Problem (2) can also create unexpected behaviour. Is it really necessary to pass the
"NormalDistribution" object; can't it be always created within the class?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message