--- CleverSwine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
It was a pretty common "cool kid" Java trick, precisely because it could be used to reduce the amount of typing. Doesn't mean it was a good idea. > 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. Just to provide a counter-anecdote, in the dozens of companies for which I've consulted I've seen it in probably half of them, give or take. Most recently in 2007, although like WebWork, the code was relatively old, and they had been unable to switch to Java 5 at that time. > 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. Relax. Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
