RussellSpitzer edited a comment on pull request #1493:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/1493#issuecomment-698063386
I believe the warning is mostly just upset that you save a abstract function
class as a field rather than a well defined object with a named method or use
just a named function. I believe they would rather it was
```java
Deleter defaultDelete = new Deleter()
class Deleter {
void doDelete(String) {
}
}
```
Where you extend Deleter rather than passing in a lambda. I think this is
unnecessary and we should just suppress.
The docs give this example
https://errorprone.info/bugpattern/UnnecessaryAnonymousClass
Yes
```java
private static Bar getBar(Foo foo) {
return BarService.lookupBar(foo, defaultCredentials());
}
.
return someStream().map(MyClass::getBar)....;
```
No
```java
private static final Function<Foo, Bar> GET_BAR_FUNCTION =
new Function<Foo, Bar>() {
@Override
public Bar apply(Foo foo) {
return BarService.lookupBar(foo, defaultCredentials());
}
};
return someStream().map(GET_BAR_FUNCTION)....;
```
So it's not so much the Lambda, but rather the fact that a function is a
field. I think the fact that our field is mutable
makes this kinda moot.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
