> On 12 Jul 2015, at 22:50, Maruan Sahyoun <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Am 13.07.2015 um 03:18 schrieb John Hewson <[email protected]>: >> >> >>> On 12 Jul 2015, at 15:17, Maruan Sahyoun <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> there are some inconsistencies between the annotation package and the form >>> package how static final fields are handled. The classes in the annotation >>> package have these public. The classes in the form package have these >>> private or package private. I'd propose to make them public in the form >>> package. >> >> I thought the goal for 2.0 was to move from using integer constants to enums? > > Good point. Why not change the visibility first and if time permits move to > enums? ATM the AP issues for fields are more important.
One reason not to change would be that once it’s public there’s no going back if we don’t move to enums before 2.0. — John >> >> — John >> >>> Furthermore there are some minor differences between method names such as >>> setReadOnly() in annotation and setReadonly() in form which I'd like to >>> make consistent prior to 2.0.0 >> >> Yes, that definitely wants to be setReadOnly(). > > Will change it. > > BR > Maruan > >> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> BR >>> Maruan >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
