--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We've been doing the same with PR_ (properties)
> and
> > FO_ (FO's) for quite some time.  
> To avoid a name conflict somewhere.

Yes, I was wondering why you didn't originally do that
for the enumeration constants as well.  I like their
self-documenting value in particular though.

> How about having 3 interfaces: 'Properties',
> 'Elements' and 'Enums' 
> which contains the constants without any prefix. And
> then decide that 
> these interfaces are never implemented, but the
> constants are always 
> accessed using the interface name:
>      Enums.TRUE
> That would keep the searchability and perhaps even
> help us when (if) we 
> move to typesafe enums.

-0.  I prefer the simplicity of the current method,
and like the way the code looks as-is.  But I can
easily see how others may view this solution as more


Reply via email to