+1 on everything Stefan said.
Subclassing is always your friend.
Stefan Andersson wrote:
> > 2) Going from 'private' to 'protected' because of the need to
> > subclass in a particular proprietary application should never be a
> > problem. This strenghtens the API.
>
> This is not always the case. See
http://opensimulator.org/mantis/view.php?id=3072. Sometimes there are
good reasons
> for keeping methods private.
I think that discussion has to be separated; I don't know the reason
for those members to be kept private (other than that the plugin
'wasn't intended to be subclassed' which is fair enough) but I can say
that generally the only reason to hesitate over going from 'private'
to 'protected' is if code is written so that state integrity is
pivotal for method execution - something that usually points to the
code being brittle in the first place. (Compare with calling virtual
members from constructors for a similar concern)
I am perfectly aware that this is touching on religion so I won't push
the issue further; suffice to say that "in most cases" we should not
have a problem with it.
For the interested, I suggest you google for religious flame wars on
the proper use of "internal" and "sealed" as well. ;-)
By the way, I take your +1's as meaning we're discussing this in order
to form an explicit concensus - if I have recieved no strong
objections, I will add this to the code conventions by friday 20/2 2009.
Best Regards,
/Stefan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
