Re: FYI: Patch: java.net: socket stuff

[Mohan Embar <gnustuff at thisiscool dot com>]

Hi People,

>> >Introducing a new method for this really unnecessary. It doenst make the
>> >code more clear.
>> 
>> I disagree. Perhaps my getImpl() idea isn't perfect,
>> but I think that a assertNotClosed() method like Dalibor suggested
>> definitely makes the code clearer and more readable. It also avoids
>> repetition of a string constant that you might have to change in n places
>> later on. You've already changed the if check once - a helper method
>> would have allowed you to change this in only one place.
>
>Dalibor and I had a talk on IRC and we came to no conclusion. Even Tom
>said that we both have our reasons to do so and he has no opinion what
>should used. ;-)

For the edification of we IRC-less folks, I'd be interested in hearing
the rationale for not changing the code.

>Personally I will not change the code but If someone really thinks it
>should be changed and can give good reasons he can change it.

I've already stated my reasons. Usually, when I have one of these
discussions with someone at my workplace, they are more influenced
by some book or web reference, so I'll pull a random one out of a hat:

http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~dstearns/SeniorProjectsWWW/Rideg/dup.html

One thing is certain: your duplication is not flagrant and is relatively
harmless. But like I've mentioned before, most forms of duplication are
like fingernails on a blackboard for me:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00335.html

-- Mohan
http://www.thisiscool.com/
http://www.animalsong.org/