Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2961

Re: Why only public methods on interfaces?

From Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject Re: Why only public methods on interfaces?
References <25875c94-9af2-4d28-976d-2050a738ae2e@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID <uXsnp.2386$YL5.697@newsfe05.iad> (permalink)
Organization Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Date 2011-04-07 21:48 -0300

Show all headers | View raw


On 11-04-07 09:09 PM, kramer31 wrote:
> Could someone please explain to me the rational behind only allowing
> public methods on interfaces?  In my mind, protection and interfaces
> are two independent if perhaps somewhat related concepts.
> 
> For instance, I have an aspect which creates a proxy of a given
> interface (which handles transaction propagation).  Now in order to
> use this aspect, I need an interface (otherwise, no proxy can be
> created).  However, I have some methods on this class which I would
> like to proxy which are public, some are protected, some are package.
> Because of this stupid restriction, I have to make all of the methods
> public, or do ridiculous things with protection on inner classes.
> 
> There are other examples, too.  In fact one could imagine a case where
> one would only want protected methods on an interface.
> 
> Yuck, Java, yuck.

I can't agree with your take on things here, with all due respect. To me
that is what an interface is for - it's the set of public methods that
you want an implementing object, including a proxy, to present to the
rest of the world.

And proxies in Java, by definition, implement a list of interfaces.
That's what they are for.

Maybe it's just me, but if I wanted an object that implemented public,
protected and private methods, I'd construct an instance of a class that
defines all those methods. Is there any reason you can't have a class
that implements the transaction interface in question?

AHS

-- 
That's not the recollection that I recall...All this information is
certainly in the hands of the auditor and we certainly await his report
to indicate what he deems has occurred.
-- Halifax, Nova Scotia mayor Peter Kelly, who is currently deeply in
the shit

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | NextPrevious 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