Christopher Oliver wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > >Hi Christopher, > > > >I did make this change because of inheritance. The private fields/methods > >very called from an inner class. This makes the compiler to > create accessor > >methods for the private fields so that the inner classes can reach > >the private fields. Changing the fields to protected avoids this > unnecessary > >accessor methods. > > > OK. But that doesn't make sense (at least to me). Why should protected > fields be accessible to inner classes but not private ones (inner > classes do not extend the enclosing class)? Can you point me to where > you got this information? > Oh, it's something I read a long time ago somewhere. I really don't remember. But as a small hint, the Eclipse IDE gives you some nice warnings at these places (if configured).
> >If you don't want that someone inherits from these classes make > them final. > > > I cound do that but then you (or another developer) could simply remove > it. > Yes, of course :) But if someone wants to change it he will have a good reason for it and perhaps ask beforehand. And a comment in the class could help as well. Now, if you think that's better the way it was before, I can simply revert the changes and try to ignore the warnings from Eclipse. No problem with that. Carsten
