On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 18:15, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Hi Peter
Sorry, that question slipped away under my fingers. But thanks, Kevin,
for this excellent answer. I couldn't have done it better. So if I may
provide a short answer to your question and to sum up the mail by Kevin:
IMO the cost,
Jeremias,
This was a serious question, really. Joerg, when he gets back, might
like to comment on this, because it was as a result of some of his input
that I first realised there was a significant cost associated with such
Java fundamentals as instanceof and type casting. Those discussions
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 10:18, Peter B. West wrote:
Jeremias,
This was a serious question, really. Joerg, when he gets back, might
like to comment on this, because it was as a result of some of his input
that I first realised there was a significant cost associated with such
Java
Hi Peter
Sorry, that question slipped away under my fingers. But thanks, Kevin,
for this excellent answer. I couldn't have done it better. So if I may
provide a short answer to your question and to sum up the mail by Kevin:
IMO the cost, if any, is by far not enough to outweigh the benefits
(code
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 16:18, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .
would you mind using the interface instead of the implementation where
possible?
big +1.
The only drawback is when you need to clone Collections, but the benefits far
outweigh this I think.
Maybe a minimal best practices or
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:25:24 +0100 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 16:18, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .
would you mind using the interface instead of the implementation where
possible?
big +1.
Thanks for your support.
The only drawback is when you need to clone
I wholeheartedly agree. This is really just good style in general.
Maybe we should seriously consider a FOP developer coding standard and start writing
it down and putting it on the site. I'd offer to help with that.
-Original Message-
From: Jeremias Maerki
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Maybe a minimal best practices or style guide document for developers
would be nice, I don't think there is one already?
Some time ago Jeremias has promised us that already :)
--
Oleg Tkachenko
eXperanto team
Multiconn Technologies, Israel
Well, if he needs help getting it done, I'm available.
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Tkachenko [mailto:olegt;multiconn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: interface instead of implementation
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Maybe a minimal
Aultman wrote:
Well, if he needs help getting it done, I'm available.
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Tkachenko [mailto:olegt;multiconn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: interface instead of implementation
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote
Sorry, Keiron, for explicitly mentioning you. I was just working in the
maint branch seeing all those ArrayLists (former Vectors) and HashMaps
(former Hashtables) that are creeping through all the code. And then
your CVS commit came... I know I can be an elephant in a porcelaine
store sometimes.
Jeremias,
I have no objection at all, as long as it costs nothing. It is free,
isn't it?
Peter
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Fellow FOP developers,
would you mind using the interface instead of the implementation where
possible? Map instead of HashMap, List instead of ArrayList. I've seen
this
12 matches
Mail list logo
