My recollection is that JCasGen tend to make things private and final, but I haven't looked at the generated classes in a while (by virtue of keeping them in generated-sources).
P On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> wrote: > there's plenty of denseness to go around :-) I think this ought to work in v2 > as well? Can you say a scenario where it wouldn't? > > -Marshall > > > On 11/21/2016 4:49 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: >> Sorry, probably I'm being dense ;) So for V2, I'm pretty sure that this >> didn't "just work", but I gather you say that for V3, this really does >> work? >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- Richard >> >>> On 21.11.2016, at 22:46, Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm probably being dense, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't just work: >>> >>> Foo : a JCas gen'd class >>> >>> SubFoo extends Foo - the subclass >>> >>> new SubFoo(jcas) would create a new feature structure, assuming the >>> constructor >>> called its superconstructor (as is normally the case). >>> >>> mySubFooInstance.getFeatureXyz() - this would be implemented in the super >>> class, and work fine, I think, as would the setters... >>> >>> -Marshall >> >
