river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: converting RegistrarImpl to public class
Date Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:53:26 GMT
So what are you proposing exactly?

Are we talking making all methods protected or just the constructor?

Why is protected a better choice than public?


----- Original message -----
> On 12-01-11 12:00, Peter Firmstone wrote:
> > With respect to protected, I don't think that's a good idea, it forces
> > you to extend something not designed for extension.
> Our 'users' are developers. What are you going to do. Force them to fork
> if they want to derive it? Occupy river package namespace?
> No. That will send people on their own path, instead of pulling them in
> to the river community.
> Gr. Sim
> Rant: i really hate it, toolkits that hide precious stuff from me the
> user, "noho, you can only use it the way WE intended". Who cares what i
> do with it. I'm responsible for my own distribution of the product that
> includes river, especially if it means i taught it to sing and dance.
> --
> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397

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