+1 to Oleg, because it shows excellent knowledge of Java language, and is certainly a little more readable, especially with those long method names that go beyond 80 columns.
+1 to Roland, though, because when I implement the interface, I have weird habits and I always just "copy & paste" from the interface, and then I get annoyed that I have to remember to add the "public" in my concrete class. I guess I'm not really helping much here. :-p On Thu, 2006-24-08 at 21:53 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 19:27 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - void close() throws IOException; > > + public void close() throws IOException; > > Roland, > > I have a pretty bizarre and verbose coding style and therefore do not > try to impose a consistent coding guidelines onto my fellow committers. > 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. > > BTW, many thanks for cleaning up Javadocs. I, for one, owe you a lot for > doing it. > > Evil Comrade Oleg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Julius Davies Senior Application Developer, Technology Services Credit Union Central of British Columbia http://www.cucbc.com/ Tel: 604-730-6385 Cel: 604-868-7571 Fax: 604-737-5910 1441 Creekside Drive Vancouver, BC Canada V6J 4S7 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
