ok, I removed the modifier, because I was inside the interface. I also saw interfaces with out that (redundant) modifiers.
So if we all agree for public modifiers, so let's use them in *all* interfaces. So, if I now see one, with out, I'll add :-) -Matthias 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. > > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf Zülpicher Wall 12, 239 50674 Köln http://www.wessendorf.net mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
