https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-325
2008/7/7 Janne Jalkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > OK, ok... I'll turn them back. However, I would very much like to have a > patch for the javadocs. > > /Janne > > > On Jul 5, 2008, at 00:29 , Murray Altheim wrote: > > Craig L Russell wrote: >> >>> On Jul 4, 2008, at 1:37 AM, Murray Altheim wrote: >>> >>>> Janne Jalkanen wrote: >>>> >>>>> The reason why those were made private was because the API should >>>>> depend on the actual value of the strings, not the declared constants. It >>>>> was a mistake to declare them public in the first place,. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't follow the logic of that at all. If I've got code that >>>> interacts with those constants (and they are constants), the >>>> "actual value of the strings" is the constant value, which I >>>> need access to programmatically. >>>> >>> To me, the reason to have a private String is to declare an >>> implementation detail. The reason to have a public String is to declare a >>> common artifact that is part of the contract of the component. >>> From this discussion it appears that the value of the String is part of >>> the interface definition that is shared among multiple classes, and as such, >>> should be public. >>> One nice side effect is code completion in code that depends on the >>> value. You can start to type InsertPage. PARAM_PAGENAME and the IDE will >>> suggest completions for it. >>> >> >> Craig, >> >> In my experience it's a very common thing to extend a plugin, to simplify >> its name or provide an alias (not having seen the aliasing feature of >> jspwiki_module.xml until a few weeks ago), to provide a copy in another >> package (so that only one path needs declaration in jspwiki.properties), >> to set default values, alter default values, alter behaviour, to disable >> features, or to use it as a component in a larger functionality. >> >> The lessons on declaring things public, protected and private have been >> reinforced many times while developing plugins -- things I thought were >> implementation details turned out to be things that an extension needed >> access to in the end, as a number of plugins I've written have been >> extended in ways I'd not originally planned. >> >> As for code completion, I'm one of those Luddites who still prefer to >> program in vi and ant, though last week I took part in a multi-day >> meeting with a vendor, discussing the details of an API. Their lead >> developer was using Eclipse to navigate through the API and watching >> the tooltips and popups of methods and class names was a reminder of >> what I've been missing. I've used MS Visual C++ so I've seen this before, >> but I'm *almost* convinced that using Eclipse would be more boon than >> bane. Almost. >> >> Murray >> >> >> ........................................................................... >> Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com> === = >> = >> http://www.altheim.com/murray/ = = >> === >> SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = = = >> = >> >> Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes, >> Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light, >> The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses, >> Knock at any door - there's one who will respond. >> -- The Blue Cli >> > > -- met vriendelijke groet, Harry Metske Telnr. +31-548-512395 Mobile +31-6-51898081
