I think it's an interesting problem. One one hand, we can't go about putting each and every string manipulating method onto String or various StringWrappers, on the other hand we have a real reusability/ discovery problem with the static helper method alternative. I suspect there are custom DateUtils and a StringUtils in play at most companies and that's hardly leveraging much.
Facets or extension methods could really improve this aspect a lot, though I suspect that will merely shift the debate elsewhere (people in here don't usually like such constructs as it "harms readability"). /Casper On Sep 24, 1:00 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've seen the anti-helper class/anti-static meme pop up every once in > awhile. And now it's raging where I work. The argument seems to boil > down to "static methods aren't OO." Given all the attention that > functional languages has gotten, I had thought most people had moved > on from trying to fit everything into a pure OO model. IMO a static > method is simply a functional construct and there are times where it's > the simplest, cleanest way to deal with a problem (e.g. the methods in > Apache Commons StringUtil > class:http://commons.apache.org/lang/api/org/apache/commons/lang/StringUtil...). > > So I'm curious, what is the latest thinking on this subject? Anyone > have any best practices around when to use a static method and when > not to? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
