>>>>> "Robert" == robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> On Thursday, December 19, 2002, at 05:53 PM, Arnd Kohrs
Arnd> is there any particular reason why
Arnd> MethodUtils.getMatchingAccessibleMethod(...) should have
Arnd> private access?
Robert> yes - but it's a long story (and a little bit political) :)
I guess the reason is that it would be too hard to document its behavior
exactly ;-). However, since I can use MethodUtils.invokeMethod(...), I have
implicitly access to it.
My use of it would be the validation of arguments for the creation of a
closure which evaluates to a call to MethodUtils.invokeMethod(...). So
that if a closure is constructed without throwing an
"IllegalArgumentException", it is valid and may be executed without
anticipating a "NoSuchMethodException".
Robert> if you want it public, why not roll your own version from
Robert> the source?
Overhead of duplication!
I don't understand why a method which invokes a loosely specified method is
public, but a method which just tells me if a loosely specified method
exists needs to be private?
May be my reasoning has some merit, and
MethodUtils.getMatchingAccessibleMethod() can be changed to public. If
this is not possible then maybe invokeMethod(...) should be deprecated.
Cheers,
Arnd.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
