--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Al Chou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would prefer that
> > commons-math be easy for users to use than for it to stick closely to
> typical
> > Java designs just for the sake of staying Java-ish.
>
> I agree; but actually sticking to "Java-ish" design patterns makes it easier
> to use for Java developers.
Yes, I had thought of that. But I think there may be occasions when we can
provide an easier to understand (and hence use) design than the standard "Java
way" (thinking of the I/O or JTree classes here as not the most obvious to
use), and we should keep an open mind to that possibility.
> If I understand what you are saying, this is not possible in Java, at least
> not
> using the same class. It is certainly possible to have one class expose a
> static method with the same name, signature and semantics that another class
> uses for an instance method. For example, we could have UnivariateImpl
> expose
> an instance method that did the same thing that a static method in StatUtils
> did. Why we would choose to do that is unclear to me, but it is certainly
> possible in Java.
I wouldn't want to do that, because it would defeat my intent of relieving the
user of having to know whether a method is a class or instance method. Eric
Pabst mentioned that Commons Bean-Utils has this functionality. I wouldn't
push to implement it in commons-math yet, but it's interesting to hear that it
can be done.
Al
=====
Albert Davidson Chou
Get answers to Mac questions at http://www.Mac-Mgrs.org/ .
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
