> On 13 Jul 2015, at 00:27, Maruan Sahyoun <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Am 13.07.2015 um 08:55 schrieb John Hewson <[email protected]>:
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> yes, otoh it would leave us with the inconsitency between annotation and form 
> which is also not good

True, I suppose the question then is, should these fields be public at all? 
Given that we have PD accessors for the individual flags which they set, I 
think the answer is actually “no”. These are COS-level values which PD should 
hide.

— John

> Maruan
> 
>> 
>> — 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]
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]

Reply via email to