Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: [Patch] ChangeLogParser - hiding field
From: kj <kevin.jackson@it.fts-vn.com>
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3u0ql6u3i.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
References: <41C2514B.8080109@it.fts-vn.com>
	 <m3u0ql6u3i.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:50:26 +0700
Message-Id: <1103284226.4266.40.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 12:29 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Kev Jackson <kevin.jackson@it.fts-vn.com> wrote:
> 
> > -class ChangeLogParser {
> > +public class ChangeLogParser {
> 
> why?
why not? ;)

No really, just habit - company standards where I've worked in past etc.
Changing it can't break BWC as it can only make the class more visible
not less visible.

I suppose it could expose the class more than was intended, but again
the only real rationale for this was that I was looking at the class and
it's completely automatic (for me) to specify an exact access modifier
for everything as shows your exact intentions.

I can understand if there's a problem with changing it and it breaks
stuff, I won't do it again, but I basically was on autopilot for that
particular change.

Also to be fair only a few classes are defined without any modifier - I
assumed this was a historical oddity and was breaking style.

Rambling now ... never mind

Kev


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org