> Not exposing implementation details through public API > is a basic OO design principle. > i think with a proper design and packaging, this will not be a problem.
I don't think you talk about the same thing here. Proper OO is using interfaces, and not casting to implementation classes. For example, constructors. Those need to be public if you want to construct a new object in a different package. How do you create a org.apache.jackrabbit.j3.nodetype.NodeTypeManagerImpl from a different package, say, org.apache.jackrabbit.j3.SessionImpl, without public constructor or public method? Maybe there is a way to do that. For you it may even be a "proper design", "modular" or whatever. Like what Jukka just made (adding an indirection class). For me, that's plain confusing, overly complex, and bad (it's security through obscurity). The direct way (having a public constructor) is the best solution. That was just an example. There are many other cases, for example org.apache.jackrabbit.j3.NodeImpl.doAddLock(..). Regards, Thomas
