On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 22:29 +0200, Roland Weber wrote: > Hi Oleg, > > > In this particular case, though, I think declaring an interface method > > public does not bring anything. All methods in an interface are public > > and public only. Is there a particular reason you want methods in this > > interface explicitly declared public? I find interfaces without public > > declarations a _little_ more readable than with. > > I don't like to have two different ways of declaring method signatures, > and having to decide which one is appropriate. In this particular case, > I copied and pasted the signature from the interface into the class in > which I wanted to implement it, and it was wrong because of the missing > "public" declaration which I had to substitute. It is quite common for > me to paste signatures from interfaces into implementation classes. But > since you are the lead developer
Roland, There are no lead developers here. This is no "I have a bigger title, I deserve a bigger bonus" corporate shit. Your vote means as much as mine, so does your opinion. Please leave public declarations be if you find them useful. Cheers Oleg > , I'll refrain from adding "public" to > (non-async) interfaces in the future. The new connection interfaces I > am currently prototyping will have the public declaration, though. > > > BTW, many thanks for cleaning up Javadocs. I, for one, owe you a lot for > > doing it. > > You're welcome. > > cheers, > Roland > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
