commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject Re: [compress] Marking a public Class non-Public
Date Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:25:58 GMT
I like the .internal. package convention (at least how Eclipse does it) but
this will not stop someone from using methods in the class through
inheritance but it makes it obvious if a class with a .internal. shows up
in an import statement. Using "Private" or "Internal" or "Impl" in the
class name is another style.


On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Stefan Bodewig <> wrote:

> Hi
> in compress' trunk we now have to different stream classes that use
> variants of LZW - the UNSHRINKING support in the zip package and the
> ZCompresorInputStream.
> They looked so similar (and CPD was rightfully moaning about code
> duplication) that I decided to extract the common code into
> <
> >
> As the two streams live in different packages I was forced to make the
> base class public.  It also introduces protected methods to
> ZCompressorInputStream that give away more about the implementation than
> I feel comfortable with - at least if we are forced to keep it stable.
> I'm looking for a way to properly state "this class is public for
> technical reasons but it is not part of the public API of Compress and
> may change between releases" - same for the protected methods, if
> possible.
> Is it enough to say so in the javadocs?  Should I move the base class to
> yet another package with something like "internal" in its name in
> addition to the javadocs?  How much effort is "enough" to allow future
> releases breaking this part of the API?
> Stefan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

E-Mail: |
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <>
Spring Batch in Action <>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message