[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-349?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gilles updated MATH-349:
------------------------
Description:
In the following excerpt from class "PoissonDistributionImpl":
{code:title=PoissonDistributionImpl.java|borderStyle=solid}
public PoissonDistributionImpl(double p, NormalDistribution z) {
super();
setNormal(z);
setMean(p);
}
{code}
(1) Overridable methods are called within the constructor.
(2) The reference "z" is stored and modified within the class.
I've encountered problem (1) in several classes while working on issue 348. In
those cases, in order to remove potential problems, I copied/pasted the body of
the "setter" methods inside the constructor but I think that a more elegant
solution would be to remove the "setters" altogether (i.e. make the classes
immutable).
Problem (2) can also create unexpected behaviour. Is it really necessary to
pass the "NormalDistribution" object; can't it be always created within the
class?
was:
In the following excerpt from class "PoissonDistributionImpl":
---CUT---
public PoissonDistributionImpl(double p, NormalDistribution z) {
super();
setNormal(z);
setMean(p);
}
---CUT---
(1) Overridable methods are called within the constructor.
(2) The reference "z" is stored and modified within the class.
I've encountered problem (1) in several classes while working on issue 348. In
those cases, in order to remove potential problems, I copied/pasted the body of
the "setter" methods inside the constructor but I think that a more elegant
solution would be to remove the "setters" altogether (i.e. make the classes
immutable).
Problem (2) can also create unexpected behaviour. Is it really necessary to
pass the "NormalDistribution" object; can't it be always created within the
class?
> Dangerous code in "PoissonDistributionImpl"
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MATH-349
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-349
> Project: Commons Math
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Gilles
> Priority: Minor
>
> In the following excerpt from class "PoissonDistributionImpl":
> {code:title=PoissonDistributionImpl.java|borderStyle=solid}
> public PoissonDistributionImpl(double p, NormalDistribution z) {
> super();
> setNormal(z);
> setMean(p);
> }
> {code}
> (1) Overridable methods are called within the constructor.
> (2) The reference "z" is stored and modified within the class.
> I've encountered problem (1) in several classes while working on issue 348.
> In those cases, in order to remove potential problems, I copied/pasted the
> body of the "setter" methods inside the constructor but I think that a more
> elegant solution would be to remove the "setters" altogether (i.e. make the
> classes immutable).
> Problem (2) can also create unexpected behaviour. Is it really necessary to
> pass the "NormalDistribution" object; can't it be always created within the
> class?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
