what the benefit is by using annotation, like "@Immutable" ?
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: Immediate Start: Need Designer's (Visual/Graphic),Beverly Hills,California,
Next: a question about alias of reference
From: Lew on 16 Jul 2010 14:27 Jim Janney wrote: >> The canonical immutable class, java.lang.String, isn't annotated as >> immutable. > markspace wrote: > Hmmm: > > "Basic, canonic, canonical: reduced to the simplest and most significant > form possible without loss of generality, e.g., "a basic story line"; "a > canonical syllable pattern."" > More like "prototypical". > Not sure if String is "canonical" here. Maybe "ubiquitous" is more what > you're after. Or possibly I just misunderstand what you mean. > String is the most basic immutable class in the API. -- Lew
From: Peter Duniho on 16 Jul 2010 14:34 markspace wrote: > Jim Janney wrote: > >> The canonical immutable class, java.lang.String, isn't annotated as >> immutable. > > Hmmm: > > "Basic, canonic, canonical: reduced to the simplest and most significant > form possible without loss of generality, e.g., "a basic story line"; "a > canonical syllable pattern."" > > Not sure if String is "canonical" here. Maybe "ubiquitous" is more what > you're after. Or possibly I just misunderstand what you mean. Maybe your dictionary is simply more restrictive in its definition of "canonical" than others, and than common usage. Found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canonical: "(of a form or pattern) characteristic, general or basic" � java.lang.String seems to me to be of a characteristic pattern wrt immutability. "Conforming to orthodox or well-established rules or patterns" � again, the String class conforms to well-established rules of immutability The word "canon" derives ultimately from the Greek "kanon" (akin to the English "cane") referring to a reed. Reeds were used for measurement, and in Latin and later Greek the word "canon" meant a rule or a standard. It seems to me that, within the JDK, the String class is a good example to be used as a standard against which other immutable classes may be measured. Of course, the real question is whether there was anything in Jim's post that caused genuine confusion. It seems to me that his point was simply that the one class in Java that everyone is familiar with and might use as a primary example of an immutable class is not in fact annotated as immutable. I don't see how his use of the word "canonical" in any way interferes with that understanding. Even if he did misuse it (and I'm not saying he did), how have we in any way added to the useful content of this Java-specific newsgroup by questioning, discussing, or debating that usage? :p Pete
From: Jim Janney on 16 Jul 2010 14:40 markspace <nospam(a)nowhere.com> writes: > Jim Janney wrote: > >> The canonical immutable class, java.lang.String, isn't annotated as >> immutable. > > > Hmmm: > > "Basic, canonic, canonical: reduced to the simplest and most > significant form possible without loss of generality, e.g., "a basic > story line"; "a canonical syllable pattern."" > > Not sure if String is "canonical" here. Maybe "ubiquitous" is more > what you're after. Or possibly I just misunderstand what you mean. I just liked the way it sounds. -- Jim Janney
From: Jim Janney on 16 Jul 2010 15:00 Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM(a)NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> writes: > markspace wrote: >> Jim Janney wrote: >> >>> The canonical immutable class, java.lang.String, isn't annotated as >>> immutable. >> >> Hmmm: >> >> "Basic, canonic, canonical: reduced to the simplest and most >> significant form possible without loss of generality, e.g., "a basic >> story line"; "a canonical syllable pattern."" >> >> Not sure if String is "canonical" here. Maybe "ubiquitous" is more >> what you're after. Or possibly I just misunderstand what you mean. > > Maybe your dictionary is simply more restrictive in its definition of > "canonical" than others, and than common usage. > > Found at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canonical: > > "(of a form or pattern) characteristic, general or basic" — > java.lang.String seems to me to be of a characteristic pattern wrt > immutability. > > "Conforming to orthodox or well-established rules or patterns" — > again, the String class conforms to well-established rules of > immutability > > The word "canon" derives ultimately from the Greek "kanon" (akin > to the English "cane") referring to a reed. Reeds were used for > measurement, and in Latin and later Greek the word "canon" meant > a rule or a standard. > > It seems to me that, within the JDK, the String class is a good > example to be used as a standard against which other immutable classes > may be measured. > > Of course, the real question is whether there was anything in Jim's > post that caused genuine confusion. It seems to me that his point was > simply that the one class in Java that everyone is familiar with and > might use as a primary example of an immutable class is not in fact > annotated as immutable. > > I don't see how his use of the word "canonical" in any way interferes > with that understanding. Even if he did misuse it (and I'm not saying > he did), how have we in any way added to the useful content of this > Java-specific newsgroup by questioning, discussing, or debating that > usage? :p It's a Friday afternoon. We may as well bicker :-) The canonical definition of canonical is of course to be found at http://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html -- Jim Janney
From: Eric Sosman on 16 Jul 2010 15:39
On 7/16/2010 2:27 PM, Lew wrote: > [...] > > String is the most basic immutable class in the API. More basic than Object? -- Eric Sosman esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid |