Deprecate IBDO.clone()/BDO.clone() in preparation for deletion per Sonar warning #707
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Sonar has the below warning for IBaseDataObject.clone() and BaseDataObject.clone(). There is an IBaseDataObjectHelper.clone(...) method that will do both the partial clone that BaseDataObject.clone() does along with a full clone. Therefore, the clone methods on IBaseDataObject and BaseDataObject are not needed. They are being deprecated in this PR and then will be deleted in a future PR.
--
WARNING:
Remove this "clone" implementation; use a copy constructor or copy factory instead.
--
REASON:
Many consider clone and Cloneable broken in Java, largely because the rules for overriding clone are tricky and difficult to get right, according to Joshua Bloch:
Object’s clone method is very tricky. It’s based on field copies, and it’s "extra-linguistic." It creates an object without calling a constructor. There are no guarantees that it preserves the invariants established by the constructors. There have been lots of bugs over the years, both in and outside Sun, stemming from the fact that if you just call super.clone repeatedly up the chain until you have cloned an object, you have a shallow copy of the object. The clone generally shares state with the object being cloned. If that state is mutable, you don’t have two independent objects. If you modify one, the other changes as well. And all of a sudden, you get random behavior.
A copy constructor or copy factory should be used instead.