> Actually, I taught OOP at graduate-level courses. ;) Well I attended those.... Nothing much to say about. But maybe yours are better than the one I needed to attend.
Also newInstance works just fine. Even on private static classes. No access restriction here. Also having no default constructor seams to create a private constructor. Weird but fun. Well if I add a public constructor Tapestry also complains about the class being not public. Thanks. Redone it myself and it works. No access restriction nothing. Even when doing it outside of the package. You wanna know why this works? Think about serialization etc. Wont work without being that lax about access restrictions I think. And if you wonder, Its just JDK 7 nothing special. Maybe it blows with sun but i dont think so. Lets wait and see. And thats the way it always worked as long as I can remember. Cheers, Martin Kersten, Germany PS: The OOP pro level stuff was just added with a smiely. It wasnt there to get you on the chair. 2013/9/24 Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <thiag...@gmail.com> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:18:25 -0300, Martin Kersten < > martin.kersten...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well its a bug. I dont habe any constructor at all. Calm down and relax. >> You dont need ans. Just call Class.newInstance and you are fine. That is >> pro.level OOP. :-) >> > > In the next message in this thread you said there was no accessible > constructor due to the class being an inner static *private* one. I don't > need to chill down (I really don't know why you said that) nor pro-level > OOP lessons. By the way, that's called 'reflection'. ;) Actually, I taught > OOP at graduate-level courses. ;) > > Cheers! > > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
