I'm fine with properties, however the _public definitions are handy in one regard: It is easy to mark methods that should be public inline in your source file, rather than some sort of external file.
Any other opinions? I'm happy to go either way. The introspection spec used to be on www.xmlrpc.org, however it seems to be missing now. Google has a cache though... Kevin On Tuesday 10 September 2002 15:45, Ryan Hoegg wrote: > Hi, > > Forgive me for being rather ignorant on introspection, but is there any > reason we want to require the XML-RPC server programmer to create public > static fields instead of using properties? > > I do not speak for the rest of the list, so I can't answer your question > about whether we want that. > > Cheers, > Ryan Hoegg > ISIS Networks > > Kevin Hester wrote: > > The listMethods/methodHelp functions use the same 'marker' system the > > old patches did. i.e. to mark a method as public via XMLRPC, you must > > declare a static of the form: > > static [final] public boolean <methodName>_public = true; > >This is necessary to avoid exposing a zillion of public methods which are > > not intended for XMLRPC.
