Comments on: Commons-io: By retards, for retards

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:35:07 +0000

My personal time saving favourites are the simple and effective org.apache.commons.lang.builder.HashCodeBuilder and org.apache.commons.lang.builder.EqualsBuilder.

Yeah, right, time saving. Till the day you realize that the company app server has restricted relflection capabilities and you end up writing the same old bull hashCode methods anew.

By: INNOVATION INNOVATION INNOVATION

INNOVATION INNOVATION INNOVATION — Fri, 04 Jun 2004 05:10:17 +0000

http://trijug.org/downloads/JBOSS1.ppt

crazy & funny & pathetic

By: Janek Bogucki

Janek Bogucki — Sat, 29 May 2004 06:21:52 +0000

There are some real gems available from the Jakarta project. My personal time saving favourites are the simple and effective org.apache.commons.lang.builder.HashCodeBuilder and org.apache.commons.lang.builder.EqualsBuilder.

I wouldn’t be without them.

By: Rampant Clown

Rampant Clown — Sat, 29 May 2004 03:11:14 +0000

While Henri likes his Lego, I think he’s playing with it on his own. Does anyone actually use these Jakarta bollocks in their products ? I mean, do you insist that your users will have to download this filth or do you just write what you need since it takes so little time to do it?

By: HolyOne

HolyOne — Fri, 28 May 2004 15:02:31 +0000

From the out sight, Apache looks good. and true,some of them may be good.

But with so many utils crap around, it really sucks now a days.

Yeah, how about somebody releasing an util library to wrap up all the fu**ing utils around??

Why the hell on earth, these people should leave the programmers to do the job? If somebody cannot do even a code to use string properly, why the hell on earth, they should be paid as programmers?

Sucks is the milder word!

By: Jakarta Tard Boy

Jakarta Tard Boy — Fri, 28 May 2004 12:27:56 +0000

I said I am from Pakistan. I am thin as toothpick.

I still want know now what mean “Immutable”?

Sorry for by mad English. I am from the pit of the arm Rawalpindi. We have no immutables.

By: Jakarta Guy

Jakarta Guy — Fri, 28 May 2004 11:54:55 +0000

Oopss… I mean Wealthy. That proved my bad English.

By: Jakarta Guy

Jakarta Guy — Fri, 28 May 2004 11:54:16 +0000

Shame on you! Not everyone in the world is as healthy and fat as pigs like Americans.

Sorry for my bad English. I’m from Indonesia, where all candidates running for presidency can all go to hell … especially Amien Rais (fuck you!), except Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (yay! Good Old Nationalist Military Figure — kick away those retarded religious candidates)

> What is does “immutable” mean?
> Sorry for my poor Engrish. I am from Pakistan > where we murder each other over 100 rupees.

By: Jakarta Tard Boy

Jakarta Tard Boy — Fri, 28 May 2004 11:09:32 +0000

What is does “immutable” mean?

Sorry for my poor Engrish. I am from Pakistan where we murder each other over 100 rupees.

By: Some reader

Some reader — Fri, 28 May 2004 11:03:37 +0000

What’s encapsulation and information hidding?

“Though the code may use Java objects, it does so in a manner reminiscent of a by-gone era: utility functions operating on data structures. Welcome to 1972!”

By: Clown Puncher

Clown Puncher — Fri, 28 May 2004 11:02:51 +0000

>but anyone who needs both hands to wank is either >doing it wrong or really shouldn’t be wanking.
>
>Posted by fletch at 27.05.2004 19:39:46

OR has a really BIG FAT CLOWN!

By: wazlaf

wazlaf — Fri, 28 May 2004 09:24:55 +0000

hani-

if I remember properly, you wished for the existence of such a device in a previous bile. this might be something for you:

Printer which takes in toilet paper

By: Jed Wesley-Smith

Jed Wesley-Smith — Thu, 27 May 2004 21:39:29 +0000

one last thing [haven't learnt yet, probably should post with a pseudonym] re. immutable Strings … on oldie but a goldie:

    public String getAString() {
        //get a reference to the private field value in String class.
        java.lang.reflect.Field stringValue = String.class.getDeclaredField("value");
        //make it accessible
        stringValue.setAccessible(true);
        //unsuspecting string
        String sittingDuck = "sittingDuck!!!!!";
        //black magic happening here
        stringValue.set(sittingDuck, "hastaLaVistaBaby".toCharArray());
        //guess the output of this!
        return "sittingDuck!!!!!";
    }

apparently this has been fixed in some recent JDK, but not sure which… doesn’t affect getBytes() but, which I have just noticed ALSO has char encoding support … dang I’m slow today!!! [note to self, NEVER post under real name the day after a big rehearsal]

By: Jed Wesley-Smith

Jed Wesley-Smith — Thu, 27 May 2004 21:24:43 +0000

duh, they did! scuse my ignorance, but the copy(*) methods take encodings as args or use the default if unspecified. oh well, back to my hole…

By: Jed Wesley-Smith

Jed Wesley-Smith — Thu, 27 May 2004 21:20:07 +0000

if they wanted to be useful, a toCharArray() that deals with char encoding properly would have been great (unicode can be a minefield to the unwary).

I have to profess though, the rest of IOUtil is pretty handy, its very easy to fuck up those pesky Reader->Writer kind of operations in weird and wonderful ways…

By: fletch

fletch — Thu, 27 May 2004 19:39:46 +0000

While you’re being pedantic, it’s “dismiss them out of hand”, not “dismiss them out of hands”… unless, of course, you were doing a bad wanker joke… but anyone who needs both hands to wank is either doing it wrong or really shouldn’t be wanking.

By: a retard

a retard — Thu, 27 May 2004 19:26:16 +0000

now

thats

what a bile should look like :)

By: Multiple choice

Multiple choice — Thu, 27 May 2004 18:39:33 +0000

Avoiding copypaste, what would you choose?:

1. programing macros in a static class? (***Util)
2. programing a new Class with one method? (for thread safety)
3. programing/using a codegenerator that does the copypaste at build-time?
4. programing a good structured design?
5. programing a good oo design?
6. use a commons-**** package?

By: chester

chester — Thu, 27 May 2004 16:52:14 +0000

The reason for the public constructors is because scripting tools like Velocity have problems calling static methods. They have to invoke methods on an instance, even if the methods are static.

I’m not even sure if this is still true (about Velocity) but I think that this is the reason.

By: Anonymous Bastard

Anonymous Bastard — Thu, 27 May 2004 16:30:57 +0000

The IOUtils class, which has only static members states this in its constructor:
“Instances should NOT be constructed in standard programming.”
Do I need to point out that the constructor is public?