On 05/03/2010, Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > Hello. > > > > I don't see any changes proposed. > > > I propose to use the instance variable in place of the accessor. > > > > I see a couple of statements that getters are used (usually considered > > good), and a question about over-riding. > > > Getters are for accessing to encapsulated data. Within the class itself the > data is readily accessible, so using the accessor is, at best, less > efficient.
Not necessarily - if it turns out that the field needs to be synchronized, then always using the getter/setter rather than direct access makes it very easy to fix the problem. > Moreover, if, by mistake, a sub-class overrides the accessor, you can get > inconsistent result: the overridden accessor can return some value while it > is another (the one stored in the instance variable) that is used to perform > the calculation. If there is a good reason to override the getter/setter, then it is likely that the sub-class wants the new value to be used throughout. > Best, > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
