The change from public to private would indicate a major version change as it changes the API. Though I suppose this could also be done if code were being contributed to a project from outside. In which case the minor (middle) number would have to have changed.
In either case changing from a protected to a public method would be allowed under semantic numbering as a patch change. As this is a patch level change, and there is a need for the functionality perhaps it should revert to the public form that it had in the past. @sebbaz can you explain why making a method public makes it more difficult to test? Seems counter intuitive to me. Claude On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 1:55 AM Mark Roberts <mar...@cs.washington.edu> wrote: > So I'm forced to add pass through methods to MethodGen? That seems a > waste of effort and still requires testing. I repeat - you can already > manipulate Attrbiutes - you should be able to manipulate Annotations in > exactly the same fashion. It is a missing capability that is needed - at > least by me and as we move forward into Java 9 and beyond I'm sure others > are going to run the problem. > > -----Original Message----- > From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:55 PM > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Subject: Re: strange change to > src/main/java/org/apache/bcel/generic/FieldGenOrMethodGen.java > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 23:16, Mark Roberts <mar...@cs.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > When the BCEL package was renamed back to org.apache.bcel in: > > > > commit d522432b79044740831a132d8b92e7dab5477444 > > Author: Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> > > Date: Tue Jun 7 17:28:43 2016 +0000 > > > > The methods to add and delete annotations were changed from public to > protected with a confusing comment: > > < public void addAnnotationEntry(AnnotationEntryGen ag) > > --- > > > protected void addAnnotationEntry(final AnnotationEntryGen ag) // > TODO could this be package protected? > > The comment makes sense to me. > > The method was changed from public to protected, reducing the visibility. > The TODO asks if it could be made package protected, i.e. further reducing > the visibility. > > > I think this might have been a cut and paste error as the same comment > was added to other methods, but they were left public (so the comment makes > sense). > > It seems to me that the other methods were also probably intended to be > reduced in visibility to protected, but this was not done. > > > In any case, the current situation is you can add and delete Attributes > but not Annotations. And, surprise, that is exactly what I need to do. > > > > Any reason not to change these back to public? > > Increasing visibility increases the difficulty of testing and increases > the likelihood of subtle bugs. > > > Thanks, > > Mark > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web <http://like-like.xenei.com> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
