ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Charles Burdick" <charles_burd...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: Ant q? about core Java task: why are members private?
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2001 23:20:06 GMT
I think this totally underscores the need for clear task interfaces in Ant2.

We should have a main Task interface (probably with a BaseTaskImpl).  Then 
have a set of standard extendable interfaces/implementations that flesh out 
basic functionality ("classpath handling, basic forking, etc").  These might 
be "FileCullerTask", "PathAwareTask", "ConditionTask", or whatever.

Then every actual task (ex: Copy, Javac, etc) would implement one (or more?) 
of those clearly defined super-task specifications.

On a side note, I agree that most methods marked private should be 
protected.  This allows JUnit tests to have proper access.

Thanks,
Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com [mailto:Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 2:02 PM
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Ant q? about core Java task: why are members private?

[SNIP]
And why not use protected as the default for most classes?  (if you don't
want people subclassing, then just declare yourself final, I'd think).
[END SNIP]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


Mime
View raw message