I disagree, but could you at least put the license on from
spec/LICENSE.txt
Thanks,
--jason
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 06:10 PM, Alex Blewitt wrote:
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 12:01 Europe/London, Jason Dillon wrote:
Also, as I noted in the coding standards, public and public static
are redundant in the context of interfaces and should not be used.
I disagree. They should absolutely be there in interfaces, along with
the abstract keyword for methods.
public interface GoodExample {
public static final int CONSTANT = 0;
public abstract void method();
}
pubic interface BadExample {
int CONSTANT = 0;
void method();
}
The reason for this is that if a developer cut-n-pastes a line from
the interface into a class, the only one that will keep the same
behaviour is the GoodExample. Missing out keywords leads to potential
problems.
It also makes it trivial to change it from an interface to a class, or
to create a subclass by copying the interface and changing the top
line.
There was a discussion in Eclipse re: generating methods w/o some of
the modifiers that got bounced to the top of the Eclipse PMC about
this. Their conclusion was that it didn't hurt to have the modifiers
in, and it actually avoided those problems outlined above.
Since an IDE will put these in automatically in most cases, I can't
see any reason for wanting them taken out.
I would say that the standard should read:
You SHOULD put in public abstract for methods, and pubic static final
for constants, but it is not mandatory to do so.
Alex.
(It is also generally considered bad practice these days to define
constants in an interface and implement it just to gain access to
those components; this should probably be put in the standards as well
IMHO)
