---- Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Hi Simon, > > > And this approach is not possible for uicomponent classes defined in the > > standard as these have defined hierarchies that cannot be modified. > > does this stem from actually trying it out? I tried it in the project > I am currently working on, and it worked. I need to admit I did not > check the Java-language specification.
You're quite right, it does work! I had just assumed that creating a public subclass of a package-scope class would not work. I have updated the wiki. But all my tests show it functions fine. A public subclass inherits any public or protected members that the package-private class defines. Subclasses of it can be declared in other packages, and instances of it can be created and invoked. The only thing that cannot be done is to cast it to its parent type. Interestingly, generating the normal javadoc doesn't show any trace of the package-scoped parent at all; anything public/protected the child inherits from its parent is just listed as if it were defined by the child itself. This is all exactly what we would want; the parent class is effectively invisible except in one case: when calling Child.class.getSuperclass(). Then, a Class instance for the package-scoped parent is returned. Well, I guess stack-traces will show it too. There is still the question of whether the TCK would pass if classes in javax.faces had package-scoped parents that are not defined in the spec. Is there someone here that can check that? If that is allowable, then this base-class approach becomes much more interesting... Regards, Simon
