Then in this case, shouldn't getChildren() not be permitted? You're exposing a
non-public sub-type.
On Tuesday, January 16, 2018, 8:23:50 AM CST, Kevin Rushforth
<[email protected]> wrote:
There are many good reasons for using non-public classes in the
implementation of a class library, the main one being to keep
implementation details from leaking into the public API. So while I
"get" that it causes difficulties in your specific case, I don't agree
that the solution is to avoid using non-public syb-types.
-- Kevin
jeffrey kutcher wrote:
> There's nothing in the JLS by that name however, section 4.5 Parameterized
>Types, might be close to what I'm looking for.
> Even in a single inheritance system, resolving methods and types is a
> multi-dimensional process.
> I still say that by not allowing private inner classes, resolving this issue
> would be much easier (or providing the access methods in the parent class of
> the private internal class would work also ... calling getChildren() really
> is a dependency on the underlying classes implementation which I really don't
> understand why is declared private and not accessible. There has to be a good
> reason otherwise it should be changed or eliminated [get rid of inner
> classes]).
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018, 7:21:32 AM CST, dalibor topic
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16.01.2018 14:08, jeffrey kutcher wrote> Is there official
> documentation explaining the method resolution process somewhere?
> I'd suggest taking a look at the Java Language specification and JVM
> specification for details.
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
