Re: Getters without the "get" part
Re: Getters without the "get" part
- Subject: Re: Getters without the "get" part
- From: Hugi Thordarson <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 04:00:49 +0000
A lot of the Java APIs make me wonder if the designers had a solid
grasp of OO. J2EE makes be doubt it entirely. Utility classes are
a symptom of a defective API.
Well - java.util.Date and the entire Calendar mess seems like definite
proof that the designers were not really designing much...
As for the collection classes, why there's no concept of immutability
in the java APIs is completely and utterly inunderstandable to me. the
"optional" methods in java.util.Collection are terrible (why the ding-
dong-diddily didn't they just create java.util.MutableCollection as a
subinterface?).
That being said, I still believe WO should go the Java way with
collections :). I know the foundation classes rulezinate and roxxxorz,
but we're using the language, so we should be embracing it and it's
conventions - besides, proprietary stuff scares potential users away.
I now try to use the standard java collections where possible, and
they're not so bad once you get used to them.
- hugi
// Hugi Thordarson
// http://hugi.karlmenn.is/
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden