+1 I agree. Lets keep it consistent and the way we have it now. (Use the public modifier.)
On 2/15/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A matter of taste I think. > I personally like the public modifier for interface methods. Although > it is redundant information it makes reading classes (and interfaces > which are classes as well) easier. When I have a quick glance on the > methods of a variable's class (i.e. by jumping to the method source > code in my IDE) it is often more important for me if a certain method > is public or not. More important than if the object's class is a Class > or an Interface. > My 2 cents. > > Manfred > > > On 2/15/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/15/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > there is no need to say "public" inside of interface > > > > > > each method defined is public and abstract > > > > > > same for constants. > > > > > > "public static final" is not needed > > > all constants are > > > > > > public static final String x = "x"; > > > same as > > > String x = "x"; > > > > Thanks. I suspected it might be something like that, but I'd never > > seen it done that way before, and wanted to make sure. > > >
