And while I now understand why it was done (or could be done), my personal preference would be to leave public and static in the interfaces as well, precisely for the reasons that Simon and Manfred stated.
+1 on using the public and static modifiers in interface files. On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +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. > > > > > >
