If thiss class contains just constants you can make it as interface and skip repeated "public static final” and also avoid checkstyle crying about constructor. :)
Cheers, Łukasz Dywicki -- [email protected] Twitter: ldywicki Blog: http://dywicki.pl Code-House - http://code-house.org Wiadomość napisana przez Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> w dniu 11 kwi 2014, o godz. 14:45: > hi Simo +1 > > Maybe we can leave in the same bundle though. Just not in the impl package… > > regards > > antonio > > On Apr 11, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Tonino, >> >> just few considerations: >> >>> +public class JwsConstants { >>> + >>> + public static final String RS256 = "RS256"; >>> + >>> + public static final String RS384 = "RS384"; >>> + >>> + public static final String RS512 = "RS512"; >>> +} >> >> I'd reduce this class constructor as 'private' >> >>> >>> Added: >>> oltu/trunk/jose/jws/src/main/java/org/apache/oltu/jose/jws/signature/impl/PrivateKey.java >> >> I wouldn't add that classes to a generic 'impl' package, they refer to >> specific 'java.security' implementation, so I would suggest to: >> >> * having them implemented in a separated module/bundle >> >> * package name be renamed >> >> WDYT? >> Best, >> -Simo >
