Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2992

Re: Why only public methods on interfaces?

Date	2011-04-08 06:59 -0700
From	Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why only public methods on interfaces?
References	<25875c94-9af2-4d28-976d-2050a738ae2e@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <4sOdneh7k40lDgPQnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <2011040801014026003-angrybaldguy@gmailcom> <5YSdnThYKPSwAgPQnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@earthlink.com> <KPCdnfEJDvZ0KAPQnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition>
Message-ID	<XoGdnZ2ah5Y6iQLQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/8/2011 12:14 AM, Peter Duniho wrote:
> On 4/7/11 10:37 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> [...]
>>> As Stefan pointed out, interfaces themselves don't have to be public.
>>> This is legal:
>>>
>>> package com.example;
>>>
>>> interface SomeInternalAbstraction {
>>> public void flog(Horse horse);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but then the implementing methods do have to be public, which is
>> undesirable if they should not be used outside the package.
>
> The implementing type doesn't have to be public either.

How do you know that? Of course, implementing the interface does not
require it to be public, but the class may also be part of the public
face of the package.

Patricia

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why only public methods on interfaces? kramer31 <kramer.newsreader@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 17:09 -0700
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-07 21:48 -0300
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-07 21:01 -0400
    Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2011-04-08 02:43 +0000
      Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-08 00:24 -0400
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-07 21:49 -0700
    Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Owen Jacobson <angrybaldguy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 01:01 -0400
      Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-07 22:37 -0700
        Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-04-08 00:14 -0700
          Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-08 06:59 -0700
            Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-04-08 07:17 -0700
              Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-08 08:59 -0700
                Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-04-08 17:27 -0700
                Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-09 22:14 -0700
                Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-09 22:28 -0700
                Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-10 16:02 +0100
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-04-08 03:18 -0700
    Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-04-08 20:32 +1000
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-08 20:34 +0100
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-10 18:10 +0100

csiph-web