On 2015-01-31, sebb wrote: > On 31 January 2015 at 09:03, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 2015-01-31, sebb wrote:
>>> Given that the protected fields were in a class marked as internal, it >>> seems arguable that users should not have referred to any of the items >>> in it. >>> Therefore we could potentially make all the mutable protected fields >>> private (and add protected getters). >> Even if the class was marked internal ZCompressorInputStream which >> inherits said fields was not. Subclasses of ZCompressorInputStream >> would be broken if we changed the fields now, I'm afraid it is too late >> already. > The question is - would external subclasses need to access all these > fields? If this is considered very unlikely, it might be worth > privatising them now. at the price of a -1 by somebody else for breaking backwards compatibility :-) Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
