Hubert Rabago wrote:
That's what we have now, accessors of "properties" in BaseConfig. In
fact, that's the only way to access them, which goes against the
convention set by most (if not all) other config objects. Other
config objects declare their fields as protected, allowing custom
subclasses to access those fields directly. I'll probably change
"properties" in BaseConfig to follow this convention.
at the moment the getProperties() returns the Map object. no necessity
for the 2 accessor methods getProperty,setProperty
Yes, but it doesn't mean I'm not open to other ideas. In this case,
I started out reading from everywhere that fields should be private,
and everything should go through accessors (even subclasses). But I've
been burned by that restriction LOTs of times (in some cases, I had
to rebuild entire libraries to get access to the fields I needed), so
I'll need some convincing. If private fields are what's best, how come
every other config field is protected?
don't know about that :)
but yes the "officially" (if it can be called that) seems to be to make
fields private and provide accessor methods.
riyaz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
