----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 4:06 PM Subject: Re: Ant q? about core Java task: why are members private?
> At 06:53 27/3/01 -0500, Eric Siegerman wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:43:05AM +1000, Peter Donald wrote: > >> [...] in some cases sub-classing is desirable > >> (zip/war/ear tasks). I would prefer to keep everything as protected (unless > >> we provide accessors to them) and just place big warning signs. > > > >Why *not* provide accessors? > > That would be excessive work ;) Though if someone else was to do it ... +1 on 'recommend that all new tasks to provide accessors to their (private) member variables'. Making things accessible to subclasses effectively freezes the base implementation. Maybe we need a 'Ant Task Style Guide' which covers this and more. -steve
