🚀 go-pugleaf

Gerry Mantha wrote:
> 
> >  3. I'd make it an interface so you don't have to inherit directly from
> >ObjectPool.
> 
> What's wrong with inheriting from ObjectPool?  Isn't that what abstract
> classes are for?  The common work is in the abstract class... Perhaps I'm
> missing your point here too.

Let's say you want to create AWT components that are reusable. You can't
inherit directly from ObjectPool; otherwise, the components would no
longer be usable.

> I'm missing you here too I think.  First, with an object pool you don't scan
> or iterate looking for type matches.  There exists a separate object pool
> for each type.  Any iteration is done for validation purposes (for
> connection reuse and such only).

I think I was going beyond the idea of simply inheriting reuse
behaviors. Let's say you want to reuse a whole wide range of objects
from AWT components to Date/Font/Color/etc. but you don't want to write
a wrapper class for everything. Rather, have a static recycler class
that anybody could use. (I've been looking this left and right and it
may be unfeasible.)