> On Apr 14, 2021, at 7:46 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@vmware.com> wrote: > @Jake the idea of smaller methods is great and we should ALWAYS strive for > that. But that argument is completely irrelevant in this discussion. As > making method arguments final does not naturally guide a developer to > creating smaller methods. Nor does a smaller method mean it can/will be > jitted. Too many factors (to discuss here) are part of that decision, also it > is not relevant in this discussion. But more on that topic read THIS.
The original subject is in regards to parameters and local variables. Irrelevant is certainly an opinion you are welcome to have but let me challenge you. Goto DistributedCacheOperation._distribute(). First challenge, look at around line 333: boolean reliableOp = isOperationReliable() && region.requiresReliabilityCheck(); Without scrolling do you see that variable used? Nope, because it is first used on line 439, ~100 lines away. Does it mutate between there, well I can search for all uses and find out or I could be nice to the next person and intend for it to never mutate by adding final. Intent communicated! Second challenge, mark all the local variables in the method as final. Now make it compile without introducing more mutable variables. At the end of this journey you will have about a dozen unit testable methods and a _distribute method that goes from ~370 lines to ~90 with no mutable local variables. I argue it is relevant as good guardrail for writing good code. While we should ALWAYS strive for it we don’t. Every little nudge helps. -Jake
