[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-459?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13686559#comment-13686559
]
Sebb commented on COLLECTIONS-459:
----------------------------------
Thread-safety is only one of the issues here - it's possible for subclasses to
destroy the invariant, i.e. startIndex <= index <= endIndex.
How about making the index package protected?
That would at least prevent 3rd party classes from corrupting the index, and
would allow it to be made private later if necessary.
As for the array Object, that is less of an issue, though it would be trivial
to add a get/set method to the parent class.
> ArrayIterator & ObjectArrayIterator - do they need setters?`
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COLLECTIONS-459
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-459
> Project: Commons Collections
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Sebb
> Fix For: 4.0
>
>
> ArrayIterator & ObjectArrayIterator both have methods to set the array
> separately from the ctor.
> However the method does not allow the same flexibility as the ctor, as it
> does not allow the start or end indexes to be set.
> Is there really a use-case for these setters? If not, all the fields apart
> from index could be made final, which would make thread safety (and testing)
> easier.
--
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
