On 31 January 2015 at 11:41, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 :-)
Well of course it would need to be agreed in advance. Although BC compatibiity is vitally important, if a breaking change only affects internal code I would hope devs would agree that it is OK to break it in such cases. > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
