On 11/23/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is there any objection to me changing instance variables from "protected" > > to > > "private"? > > > +1 unless there are already subclasses that access such variables from their > superclass ... in which case we should evaluate whether a getter method > might be better. You can always loosen access rights later, but you can't > put the toothpaste back in the tube.
There are only two where this is the case.DatabaseBasicMessages sets/gets the key and values variables inherited from BasicMessage. BasicMessage has getters but no setters, but DatabaseBasicMessages implements setters. Could either leave it as is, or move the setters out of DatabaseBasicMessages and into BasicMessage. For now I'm going to leave it as it is, unless someone shouts. The other one is the static "factory" variable in Messages - at the moment the only reference is in one of the test classes which sets it, but making it private would mean it can never be changed from ResourcesBundleResourcesFactory without a static setter being added. Again I'm going to leave it as it is, unless someone shouts. > Niall > > > Craig > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
