Conversation
danielnd14
commented
Apr 17, 2022
danielnd14
commented
- Created adapter for unsupported operations, this approach grant the concrete classes concern only on theirs busines logic.
- Created an enum for Qname instances. Enuns are singleton by default (see QNameBucket).
- Changed classes for to use the singleton instances of Qname.
- Changed utils or helpers classes to final by default.
- Created LazySupplier in a generic approach.
- Changed the classes to use the LazySupplier and removed old Supplier implementations.
- Extracted the duplicated code in a method on StreamingCell class. (see getCellTypeFromShortHandType).
- Moved some initializations to constructor in respective classes.
- Replaced "new Integer(20)" to "Integer.valueOf(20)" in Test class.
- Created adapter for unsupported operations, this approach grant the concrete classes concern only on theirs busines logic. - Created an enum for Qname instances. Enuns are singleton by default (see QNameBucket). - Changed classes for to use the singleton instances of Qname. - Changed utils or helpers classes to final by default. - Created LazySupplier in a generic approach. - Changed the classes to use the LazySupplier and removed old Supplier implementations. - Extracted the duplicated code in a method on StreamingCell class. (see getCellTypeFromShortHandType). - Moved some initializations to constructor in respective classes. - Replaced "new Integer(20)" to "Integer.valueOf(20)" in Test class.
|
Thanks for your interest but I don't want this massive refactor. If you have specific changes, you can submit them in smaller chunks. Essentially, I don't want to change the class structure i ways that cause backward compatibility issues. I've only just released a 4.0.0 major release and don't want to do a 5.0.0 any time soon. |
|
Okay, while it's a massive refactoring it doesn't necessarily break backwards compatibility. All interface contracts are maintained. And all unit tests are fully functional. |
|
I've applied a couple of changes but the timing is bad - if this had come in a few days ago - prior to the 4.0.0 release, I would probably have just taken the whole PR but now I am reluctant to start moving around lots of code. Let me consider some of the refactors over the next few days. |
|
Okay, if you need me to solve any questions, please tag my name in the comments here. |
|
@pjfanning, If you prefer, I can push each change separately. |
|
to be honest, I'm not sure the changes are needed - yes, it is tidier - but it makes binary compatibility changes that I do not want to add - to be frank, what this project lacks is test coverage - niceties about whether classes are final or not are not so important in the end of the day |
2 participants
