Hi again - I forgot the links! [1] - https://projectlombok.org/features/experimental/UtilityClass [2] - https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1216151&seqNum=4
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 17:38, Daniel Watford <d...@foomoo.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Suraj, > > If the class author's intention was to create a utility class then I would > support demonstrating this by using the private constructor. > > The Lombok project briefly describes the case they support with the > @UtilityClass [1]. > > Private constructors for utility classes also appears in Effective Java > [2]. > > I'm not sure I would extend the definition of Utility Class to cover > things like PartyServices, though. I would prefer utility classes only > contain functional code - i.e. no side effects - which cannot be the case > for services. > > Summary - if a class is a genuine utility class, then we should probably > treat it as such by implementing the private constructor and marking the > class final. I'm not sure about whether the same approach should be applied > to non-utility classes that happen to only have static methods. > > Thanks, > > Dan. > > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 16:02, Suraj Khurana <suraj.khur...@hotwax.co> > wrote: > >> Hello team, >> >> While checking codebase using QAPlug [1], it is suggesting to 'Make sure >> that utility classes (classes that contain only static methods) do not >> have >> a public constructor' as an efficiency enhancement. >> >> According to it, all our services, events, helper, worker classes which >> are >> mostly in JAVA should be having a private constructor and must be defined >> as 'final' so that the JVM doesn't need to create a data object using that >> default constructor everytime and supplies which is time taking. >> >> Please let me know your thoughts on this. >> >> [1]: https://qaplug.com/ >> >> -- >> Best Regards, >> Suraj Khurana >> Senior Technical Consultant >> > > > -- > Daniel Watford > -- Daniel Watford
