hehe, you mean some accidental stuff like private :-)
On 2/15/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another reason is that you might get the impression that you could use > _other_ modifiers on interface methods. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well "clutter" is a subjective reason. Many of us like this "clutter" > > for the reasons expressed earlier. > > > > Sean > > > > On 2/15/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, > > > > > > I remember now that it was Joshua Bloch who talked about that in > > > "Effective Java" - he was explicitly arguing for removal, but don't > > > ask me why. I believe he just said that it clutters up your code. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > On 2/15/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > > Courses in English and German > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > -- Matthias Wessendorf Zülpicher Wall 12, 239 50674 Köln http://www.wessendorf.net mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
