The methods on the interface are custom to a specific implementation.
And the backup manager for example, doesn't need these, nor does it use them
So not entirely intentional, just legacy that lives on.
Filip
Ian Darwin wrote:
While running an automated code testing tool of my own design I fou
While running an automated code testing tool of my own design I found
that a few of the accessors on this class are incorrect, or at least,
"setter silently ignored, getter returns hard-coded value".
Can anybody please tell me if this was intentional, or just something that's
not used anyway?
