IMO private setters are not useful.
We should use protected or public setters if this helps in the tests and
if this helps for the "pojoification":
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-494
Stefano
Norman Maurer wrote:
Am Freitag, den 09.06.2006, 22:05 +0100 schrieb Steve Brewin:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Norman Maurer wrote:
- Add [protected] set methods for ServiceManager and DNSServer
Those properties were private, and you've now exposed setters
i make a mistake
:-) No problem. So this was just a style change, not a
planned change in
function? You prefer to use a private setter rather than an
assignment, and
hope that the call overhead gets optimized out by the
compiler? Not that it
matters much in an init() method. :-)
Most compilers don't optimize this out, but the JVMs do.
To prove the first, decompile your bytecode and see if the methods which
invoke the setter method still do.
To prove the latter, read the many papers on JVM optimizations, or more
pragmattically test it by measuring the releveant performance of each
approach over several iterations.
Optimizing out trivial assertions is one of the most basic tuneups a modern
JVM does. Its true that this may not happen on the first reference and the
optimization will inevitably consume processor time. But its a neglible cost
for good style.
-- Steve
For me its just a "style change". Anyway if someone not like it i revert
it. But for me its "cleaner".
Bye
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
