Chris Pratt wrote: > > I don't know for sure, but that's pretty common practice before Java 5's > import static. >
I disagree. This was in practice in the '90s, although to say it was "common" is a stretch. Much more common has always been to define constants in a utility class or within the class that most used the constant. As the original poster wrote at http://www.nabble.com/struts2-design-question-to15595006.html, such code has been in disfavor for many years now. In the dozens of companies for which I've consulted, I haven't seen it done since a client in the educational textbook industry in 2001. Adam Hardy wrote: > I think if you look at StrutsStatics it's not really the constant > interface antipattern. > What?! It is *precisely* the constant interface antipattern. The larger problem is why this exists in XWork code, too (see original poster's comment), and how poor design like this affects the public view of Struts2. Use of the constants interface antipattern is a sign of choosing laziness over good design. CleverSwine -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/StrutsStatics...-tp15595866p15613189.html Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
