Hmm...
I never use public in interfaces - and with IntelliJ, you can even
change the settings so that you get a warning on that.
AFAIK, it's supposed to be good code style to leave those public
modifiers out, but don't ask me where I've read this. Reading too much
these days ;)
regards,
Martin
On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yup. We also use the optional { } around if else statements in this
> project for similar reasons.
>
> Sean
>
> On 2/15/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 12:31 -0500, Mike Kienenberger 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.
> >
> > That's why I typically use "public" and "static" keywords in interfaces
> > anyway; not everyone is aware of these interface features. It doesn't
> > make the bytecode any larger, and cannot be misunderstood...
> >
> >
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
