I propose to replace the parallel arrays with a ClassLoaderFactory.Repository(type, location) class and a ClassLoaderFactory.RepositoryType enum. (I know this is small fry, but just trying to get my feet under the desk so to speak...)
Is the lack of such conventions now just a hangover from pre Java 5+ days, an intentional thing we'd like to hang onto, or just something that wasn't important enough to change? cheers tim On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:55 PM, <bugzi...@apache.org> wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48870 > > Summary: avoid parallel arrays of base types > Product: Tomcat 7 > Version: unspecified > Platform: All > OS/Version: All > Status: NEW > Severity: enhancement > Priority: P2 > Component: Catalina > AssignedTo: dev@tomcat.apache.org > ReportedBy: hau...@acm.org > > > Created an attachment (id=25103) > --> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25103) > patch_parallelArrays.txt > > having kind of 'synchronized' arrays, i.e. one of Strings and another one of > Integers appears to be a questionable programming pattern to me. > > Pls find attached a hopefully more OO approach > > see also bug 48158 > > -- > Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are the assignee for the bug. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
