Prev: Web Services Restful Services
Next: servlet/applet communication problem or Linux/Windows trouble?
From: Mike Schilling on 16 Dec 2009 20:26
Arne Vajh�j wrote:
>> By nsmc I mean non static member classes.
>
> Ah.
>
> Somebody made a decision.
>
> Given that such classes are tied to something non-static (the
> instance of the surrounding class), then the use of static would
> be bit fuzzy in semantics.

No, it wouldn't. You can dicuss it all you like, but it's quite clear that
the only sensible decision is one copy of each static per Class instance.
(It might be fuzzy if the msmc and its parent class could be loaded by
different classloaders, but that's not possible.)


From: Mike Schilling on 3 Jan 2010 01:27
Arne Vajh�j wrote:
> On 16-12-2009 20:26, Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Arne Vajh�j wrote:
>>>> By nsmc I mean non static member classes.
>>>
>>> Ah.
>>>
>>> Somebody made a decision.
>>>
>>> Given that such classes are tied to something non-static (the
>>> instance of the surrounding class), then the use of static would
>>> be bit fuzzy in semantics.
>>
>> No, it wouldn't. You can dicuss it all you like, but it's quite
>> clear that the only sensible decision is one copy of each static
>> per
>> Class instance. (It might be fuzzy if the msmc and its parent class
>> could be loaded by different classloaders, but that's not
>> possible.)
>
> I am not sure that I would call that sensible.
>
> It is not exactly "classic static behavior".

It seems to me that it is. "static" means "one per Class". not "one
per instance".


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Web Services Restful Services
Next: servlet/applet communication problem or Linux/Windows trouble?