Well, an issue of good OO design or not. Returning a mutable collection breaks encapsulation. My initial question is whether the collection is simply a detail of the implementation or part of the external interface you want to expose. If the former, hide the collection and expose operations that provide what’s truly needed. If the latter, then you might need immutable collections.
Java devs aren’t crazy… they just tend not to understand OO very well. Dave On May 13, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it is more an issue of design. > > If your Invoice has a collection of "Items", you shouldn't manipulate > the collection directly and instead use accessor/operator methods. > > I wouldn't restrict having the option of direct manipulation of the > collection, but it is a nice thing to have covered by some LINT rules. > :) > > > Regards, > > > Esteban A. Maringolo > > > 2014-05-13 6:53 GMT-03:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com>: >> Hi, >> >> sorry if there was already this question, but I couldn’t find it anywhere. >> >> I’m looking in the OO-design concerns and it seams that Java guys are crazy >> about returning the collection that is used for state of an objects. The >> only acceptable option is returning it in the immutable wrapper. As far as I >> know, pharo does not have immutable collections (except from intervals and >> symbols). Are we missing something important, or there is a philosophy >> behind the building blocks we have now, and the design we come up while >> using them. >> >> Cheers. >> Uko >
