ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick (Gus) Heck" <>
Subject Re: Vetoes are void? was Re: [VOTE] target-less build files - countingresults
Date Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:29:03 GMT
Well you are right, though in the specific case I was refering to
nothing was final. I tend to like to see such constants attached to a
class that makes sense rather than collected in a constant bag. I'd also
consider creating singlton objects that held the resource...

I was also thinking of the more extreme case where a person actually
writes a bunch of non obj oriented code that does non-intializer type
work and gets run at startup before main. I'm sure someone out there is
doing that. There might even be a good reason for it... But I wouldn't
call it a good or clean use of java. IMHO it would be a hack that was
working around limitations of java if it was neccessary and just crappy
code if it wasn't. At least that is my opinion.


"J.Pietschmann" wrote:
> Patrick (Gus) Heck wrote:
> >>> like having methodless classes with only
> >>>a static part...
> > In fact a colleague of mine just ran into exactly this type of java file
> > (written by someone else) in some code he is working with. Scary but
> > there are people out there who do scary things!
> What's scary about them? In some circumstances Java
> classes with only final static variables are a perfect
> place for keeping magic constants, or hash tables (this
> is where static initializers come into play).
> I've seen this regularly in context of generated code.
> In the same sense I could imagine build files wich
> only define properties, to be imported. But then,
> it's a matter of taste whether you like them or not.
> J.Pietschmann
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message