search

audriusrudalevicius / evolutionchamber

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/evolutionchamber
0 stars 0 forks source link

Should be a static inner class #215

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Pattern: Should be a static inner class
id: SIC_INNER_SHOULD_BE_STATIC, type: SIC, category: PERFORMANCE

This class is an inner class, but does not use its embedded reference to the 
object which created it.  This reference makes the instances of the class 
larger, and may keep the reference to the creator object alive longer than 
necessary.  If possible, the class should be made static. 

Bug: Should com.fray.evo.action.EcAction$CanExecuteResult be a _static_ inner 
class?
Pattern id: SIC_INNER_SHOULD_BE_STATIC, type: SIC, category: PERFORMANCE

This class is an inner class, but does not use its embedded reference to the 
object which created it.  This reference makes the instances of the class 
larger, and may keep the reference to the creator object alive longer than 
necessary.  If possible, the class should be made static. 

Bug: Should com.fray.evo.util.ActionList$Comparitor be a _static_ inner class?
Pattern id: SIC_INNER_SHOULD_BE_STATIC, type: SIC, category: PERFORMANCE

Bug: Should com.fray.evo.util.ActionList$TWrapper be a _static_ inner class?
Pattern id: SIC_INNER_SHOULD_BE_STATIC, type: SIC, category: PERFORMANCE

Bug: Should com.fray.evo.util.EcAutoUpdateTest$CallbackImpl be a _static_ inner 
class?
Pattern id: SIC_INNER_SHOULD_BE_STATIC, type: SIC, category: PERFORMANCE

Bug: Should com.fray.evo.util.EcAutoUpdateTest$DisplayDownloadProgress be a 
_static_ inner class?
Pattern id: SIC_INNER_SHOULD_BE_STATIC, type: SIC, category: PERFORMANCE

Bug: Should com.fray.evo.util.EcMessagesTest$JavaAndDirsFilter be a _static_ 
inner class?
Pattern id: SIC_INNER_SHOULD_BE_STATIC, type: SIC, category: PERFORMANCE

Original issue reported on code.google.com by netpr...@gmail.com on 20 Jul 2011 at 8:04

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
This issue was closed by revision r295.

Original comment by netpr...@gmail.com on 20 Jul 2011 at 8:05