On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 20/03/2011 19:28, Phil Steitz a écrit : >> Quite a few methods have been added to RandomDataImpl that are not >> in RandomData. The methods were added to the impl class only to >> preserve backward compatibility in versions 1 and 2. In 3.0, we now >> have the choice to add the methods to the interface or even dispense >> with the interface altogether. Personally, I am leaning in the >> direction to just make RandomData a concrete class and move the >> implementations in RandomDataImpl into that class. Early on, we >> thought that RandomData might be a relatively small but useful >> interface. What I think now is that the more valuable >> interface/implementation separation is at the lower level of random >> generators, which is enabled in RandomDataImpl. >> >> What do others think about this? > > I also think the RandomDataImpl layer adds too much complexity for users. > +1 to merge it in RandomData. >
I don't follow [math] that closely, but the above isn't what I read from Phil's original mail. :/ Matt > Luc > >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
