Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

#62 Restrict visibility to class visibility

open
Joerg Spieler
Bad marker (7)
5
2012-07-19
2011-08-29
Anonymous
No

This one is a bit more controversial: for instance, when an inner class is defined as private, then there's no need to say its members or methods should be private, even if technically their visibility can be reduced.
I have a lot of small classes, inner or package-limited, whose API is clean and who have a limited visibility only because it's not yet useful outside. For instance, having their getters public is really what I want (their class' visibility restricts them anyway), proposing me to set them private or package is technically correct but makes no sense as an API.

Discussion

  • Joerg Spieler
    Joerg Spieler
    2011-09-10

    You are right: Restrict visibility of methods or fields to to class visibility is technically ok, but does not make so much sense.

    I will include it in next version.

     

  • Anonymous
    2011-09-12

    In fact it could be an option: strict mode => actual mode, where you propose really the minimal visibility, and standard mode => where you start by truncating the element's visibility to their class' visibility.

     


Anonymous


Cancel   Add attachments