David liesenfeld meet me

Stories | Rotary Club of Norman

david liesenfeld meet me

eligible for election to membership in the AAI, a candidate must meet one of the following criteria: 1. Possess a pledge that the copies of The Journal of Immunology purchased by me at FitzGerald, David J., Liesenfeld, Oliver, "I am honored that you had asked me come out here and sit as your hearing officer," . Bodo Liesenfeld, managing partner of Liesenfeld International, and Rolf Menck, During the Tuesday's selectmen's meeting, Planning Board Chairman . David Oles, an integrated systems consultant for American Alarm, said they put. It happened more than once to me that I wanted to override some detail in a class from a third Sun, 21 May , Dave Astels, btcmu.info. you can't build . Fri, 26 May , Rogerio Liesenfeld, The use of final is purely a If you think -that- was a strong suggestion from me, we ought to meet sometime.

In fact, in many cases no mechanism may be the best mechanism. Not that "soft final" could not work for those cases as well. But having gotten in the habit of rather easily changing a private method to protected to get legacy code under test, I'm happy that I can remind myself of the danger of calling methods from constructors by making those methods final.

This is mostly a legacy code problem, because a single constructor should not do much anyway. I totally agree with your sentiment, and that there are probably no cases when you should use "final" in anything that Fowler calls a "published API". But, that said, maybe a warning is enough. In code I can change, though, final really isn't much more than a warning - if it gets in the way, I simply remove it. I find that to be rather convenient in some cases. Something similar could be said about private methods.

It happened more than once to me that I wanted to override some detail in a class from a third party, found that the behaviour I wanted to change was extracted into its own method, exactly like I needed it - just to find that the method was private instead of protected. Makes me want to cry Today it would really have been rather handy to mock a few framework objects. You guessed it-- final and not open-source so I can't change it.

C is no better. No subclassing a sealed class, you might accidentally make it useful. Heaven forbid that people make use of software components. At his JavaOne [? He explained that what he meant by this was that just as he has advocated in the past that everything that can be made private should be, he also is now recommending that everything that can be made final should be.

He was thinking from an API designer's point of view and said that the chief exception was serialization. I wonder how he'd respond to the implications to testing. Also, although I agree with your objection from a testing point of view, this seems like similar arguments about having to make elements non-private to support testing.

For example, imagine that you want to have a method that is only accessible to implementors of a given interface. We could make the method package-private, but then all of the implementors of that interface have to be in the same package.

These sorts of mechanisms force us to structure classes and packages in ways that we might otherwise prefer to avoid in order to limit the scope as we wish. I wonder if support for some sort of declaritive arbitrary scoping would help to provide the sorts of security that authors who use "final" are looking for without making it so difficult for the rest of us to use their code. Sat, 20 May Josh Bloch's J1 session "I agree with your objection from a testing point of view" Daniel, apologies if I'm misreading your response, but it seems that you want separate the "testing perspective" from the "development perspective".

For many of us who practice TDD, there is no such distinction. There are some differences in opinion about the boundaries of coding for testability i. Sun, 21 May It's a pandering to paranoia of managers who don't trust their programmers, and the desire to use crap programmers who shouldn't be trusted. Smalltalk doesn't have the concept of "final". And it's all the better for that. You tell people that certain methods are for internal consumption.

Get good people that know what they're doing, trust them to to the right thing, and give them the freedom to. Don't get crap people and put limits on what they can do. And if you use them in that way - not as a mechanism to limit usage of the code, but to communicate the current usage of the code, I find it to be valuable.

Wed, 24 May Why throw away either security or testing? The tension between declaring-everything-to-be-exactly-how-I-intend-it and ease of testing is an interesting one, worth lots more thought I think.

Without a virtual table the invocation overhead is, obviously, reduced. In some cases the tradeof between a minus increase in performance and the capacity to make a unit test is worthwhile, in other cases it is not. And keep in mind that you can also use interfaces to build a unit test, you doesn necessarily need to override the implementation class, just wrap it.

david liesenfeld meet me

Thu, 25 May Thanks to people like we have so many security flaws and other kinds of bugs in software nowadays. People WILL commit mistakes, just because they are people. Are you advocating that creating tools that help to prevent simple errors is bad? Rammstein Agreed that people will make mistakes, but the point Michael is making is that people who want to test their code are going to wrap the final classes and make those mistakes anyhow.

In that case, final buys us nothing and costs us the extra expense of wrapping the code. In these cases, if you don't use final appropriately, your code is broken. Memory Model and threading The meaning of "final" is overloaded here.

The keyword is the same, but in the case you describe if I understand you correctlyit is used to identify immutable objects at runtime. That strikes me as a completely separate issue from classes not objects that are immutable at "dev-time". If that design intent either is of no use to you, or is it right or wrong is entirelly another separate issue.

I could think of a fully useful use of final for a pre-release, optimization step on a product which would magically put final keywords to all allowed places to generate a more optimized code thus avoiding polymorphysm whenever it could Finally, I would rather try to deprecate the "super" keyword, since it usually is a code smell. As someone who has tried to design APIs with robust implementations for many years now, I've found that designs that just assume inheritance instead of explicitly design for it tend to be very difficult to extend or improve, and thus less useful than more "restrictive" ones.

As Josh Bloch and many other experienced public API designers have stated, it is easy to increase access in an initially restricted API but you cannot later restrict it without breaking compatibility. The more transparent a class is, the less flexibility you have to improvwe it without breaking its clients.

And nothing needs to be accessed in a good API when testing other than its public contract. Many test-writers complain that black-box testing a particular API is impossible and so they need white-box access, but what they are really having problems with is the API itself, not a lack of access to the implementation internals. If you need access to some internal information, say to verify class invariants, then write a package-private method to test that invariant and write a test with the same package name.

Show me code that you think requires subclassing of final methods or access to private ones, and I am confident that there a better solution can be found by fixing the API rather than violating the implementation's access.

david liesenfeld meet me

It's not that people need to test the API although that would be nice at times but rather they need to write tests for code that uses the API but doesn't exercise the code behind it. Too often the people who've written the API are inaccessible. And it's not about testing the software that's implementing final classes, it is about testing the software that uses the vendor provided software. Here's a concrete example no pun intendedthough in a different language.

I am currently working on a. NET desktop application which has to be able to print receipts from a collection of transactions. Graphics is a sealed, concrete class. It does not implement an IGraphics interface.

It offers no means of serialization, exporting to a stream, or anything that would let me capture its contents in a test. So in order to test that my class that is generating the receipt does so correctly, I've had to wrap the parts of the API in a GraphicsWrapper [?

The receipt generator uses an implementation of GraphicsWrapper [? The code that runs in production, not in tests, has to use an implementation of this wrapper as well. OK, so let's drop the "final" argument for a second and imagine that we all agree that sealing this class is a good idea.

Even then, if the designers of this library really cared about me being able to test my software, they could have made Graphics an interface instead of a concrete class and provided a factory from which I could acquire a concrete instance of an implementor whose real name I don't even need to know.

We don't have to have a zone change. I think we can work this out.

Meet the CA Support Engineers | CA Communities

Fewer t-shirts, more blazers. On a rainy Saturday, hundreds of people packed the Hynes Convention Center for the third annual New England Cannabis Convention, months after Massachusetts voters broadly legalized marijuana for recreational use.

Attendees were not allowed to smoke or vape inside the center: Signs were posted outside the entrances and inside vestibules as reminders. The convention's main focus wasn't on smoking anyway, and centered instead on growing, cultivating and protecting the substance that remains illegal at the federal level.

Another, Arch Solar of Portland, Maine, showed off a tiny model of the "Grow-Box," an hybrid indoor-outdoor greenhouse that seeks to take advantage of natural light in a bid to offer savings on energy costs. CannaCloud, based in Stoneham, Mass.

But the industry still has a ways to go. The marijuana plants many vendors used to help model their indoor growing lights were plastic.

Please turn JavaScript on and reload the page.

The vacuum sealing machine's demo had broccoli inside instead of cannabis. And inside the convention hall, people by and large declined to stop and chat with reporters. One man, who said he is an engineer, asked that his name not be used as he relayed how he's scouting out the technology on display for his wife. She's looking to start a grow facility in Massachusetts, he said. Legalization activists are hoping pass bills in six states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont in and Medical marijuana is legal in more than half the country, including Massachusetts.

Steve Flaks, vice president of sales at BioTrackTHC, a seed-to-sale software company, said he expects a "whole new wave" of people to get into the industry over the next few years, leading to a "professionalization" of the business.