[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-473?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13686544#comment-13686544
 ] 

Sebb commented on COLLECTIONS-473:
----------------------------------

Replacing "collection" with "decorated()" in sub-classes does not affect the 
casting issue as they are both of type Collection<E>.

The problem with allowing direct access is that a grand-child sub-class can 
accidentally subvert a child sub-class.

For example, if one wanted to create a logging layer, it could not guarantee 
that all sub-class accesses were logged.

It would also potentially allow the field to be made final later, by suitable 
changes to the deserialisation.

Exposing the field now means it *cannot later be hidden* whilst maintaining 
compatibility.

Hiding the field provides several benefits; any down-sides seem to me to be 
very minor in comparison.

It will still be possible to deliberately subvert the class via reflection, but 
at least casual misuse is avoided.
                
> AbstractCollectionDecorator.decorated() should not be used internally
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COLLECTIONS-473
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-473
>             Project: Commons Collections
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Sebb
>
> AbstractCollectionDecorator.decorated() is used internally to access the 
> collection.
> However, the method is not final, so subclasses could override it.
> Yet the field is also exposed (protected).
> This is inconsistent.
> Is there any use-case for overriding the collection to use a different one?
> If so, having direct access as well is likely to cause problems.
> I think it would be better to use the field directly internally.
> The class Javadoc says the calls are forwarded to the underlying collection, 
> but that is not strictly true if decorated() is overridden.
> If it is intended to allow this to be overridden, then the field needs to be 
> protected against arbitrary read/write access.
> The field should probably be made private with a setter for use by 
> deserialization only.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to