ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Charles Burdick" <>
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.


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 2:02 PM
Subject: Ant q? about core Java task: why are members private?

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).
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

View raw message