3,785 reputation
1536
bio website heinzi.at
location Vienna, Austria
age 34
visits member for 3 years, 1 month
seen 8 hours ago

Jun
10
comment Responsibility to reproduce bugs
So if an app crashes "every now and then", without dicernible pattern for the user, then the developer does not have to fix it because the user cannot reproduce it on command? I strongly disagree here...
May
31
awarded  Enlightened
May
29
awarded  Nice Answer
May
29
revised Should Cross browser testing be explicitly mentioned in the scope of a project?
added 229 characters in body
May
29
revised Should Cross browser testing be explicitly mentioned in the scope of a project?
added 213 characters in body
May
29
answered Should Cross browser testing be explicitly mentioned in the scope of a project?
May
29
answered Static or non-static?
May
28
awarded  Popular Question
May
25
answered Cold, neutral attitude to programming languages - sign of a pro developer or not
May
23
answered Should I parse an email template before or after placing it in the queue?
May
21
awarded  Popular Question
May
14
awarded  Popular Question
May
10
awarded  Excavator
May
10
revised Did the developers of Java consciously abandon RAII?
unmatched parenthesis
May
4
accepted I should have used a factory method instead of a constructor. Can I change that and still be backwards-compatible?
May
4
comment I should have used a factory method instead of a constructor. Can I change that and still be backwards-compatible?
+1, nice option. I still prefer option 2, though, since it allows me to access XmlDataSource-specific functionality by explicitly instantiating XmlDataSource.
May
4
awarded  Nice Question
Apr
29
comment I should have used a factory method instead of a constructor. Can I change that and still be backwards-compatible?
@pdr: 1. Every change to method signatures has to be made at one more place. 2. I can either make the Impl classes inner and private, which is inconvenient if a client wants to access specific functionality only available in, e.g., an Xml data source. Or I can make them public, which means that the clients now have two different ways of doing the same thing.
Apr
29
revised I should have used a factory method instead of a constructor. Can I change that and still be backwards-compatible?
syntax
Apr
29
revised I should have used a factory method instead of a constructor. Can I change that and still be backwards-compatible?
added 201 characters in body