Re: Public Static Final

From:

Lew <lew@nospam.lewscanon.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.help

Date:

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:02:21 -0400

Message-ID:

<dqWdndNo8ugQSpLbnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@comcast.com>

Lew wrote:

Or you could use

import static package.Barney.STRENGTH;

Tom Hawtin wrote:

...and confuse everyone by having odd, undeclared symbols in your code.

Well, yes, there is that.

Personally I don't use "import static" for that reason.

Slightly more convenient than using a class to hold constants is to use an interface

but ever so slightly

(but don't implement it!).

That is the danger and the reason to recommend against the use of interfaces -
too many succumb to the temptation to implement the interface.

With an interface you can drop the "public static final" as that is all implicit.

However, even with an interface I'd recommend using the "public static final"
because that phrase is practically a Java synonym for "constant", and leaving
it in the declaration helps document the intent of the variable.

Which in turn negates the advantage of using an interface.

Anyway, the idea of an interface is do define a type - it is against the
philosophy of interfaces to create one that is intended never to be implemented.

-- Lew