You're kind of worrying me by trying to reimplement this, but in any case. I agree interfaces that not specifying the access privilege is confusing, but I'm seeing it in more and more places (that access privileges on interfaces aren't specified). Maybe just something we have to get used to.
Serge Knystautas Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites http://www.lokitech.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lucas Gonze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:12 PM Subject: visibility modifiers in MailetContext.java > The problem: > > The declaration of setAttribute in MailetContext: > package org.apache.mailet; > ... > void setAttribute(String name, Object object); > > Create a class that implements it with same declarations -- > package not.org.apache.mailet; > public MyClass implements MailetContext { > ... > void setAttribute(String name, Object object); > > Get compiler error: > setAttribute(java.lang.String,java.lang.Object) in not.org.apache.mailet.MyClass > cannot implement setAttribute(java.lang.String,java.lang.Object) in > org.apache.mailet.MailetContext; attempting to assign weaker access privileges; > was public > > The fix: > > Explicitly declaring access privileges within the Interface definition helps to > prevent this error. Edited MailetContext.java attached. (Based on a CVS > checkout last weekend). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
