Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> Not in the cases that I had in mind; it's more an API ease-of-use thing.
> For example ObjectId has an implicit public constructor, but the resulting
> instance is useless since the only setter - setIdKeys() - is protected, so
> the other constructors are the only 'usable' ones.
I am confused, ObjectId doesn't have a default constructor.
> Similar Attribute and Relationship. If you construct e.g. an empty
> DbAttribute and try to add it to a DataMap, it will raise an exception
In case of DbAttribute, you can always call setName before adding to an
entity. We use it all over in the unit tests. I don't have any serious
objections to making it protected (but not private), I just don't see a
need to do so.
Oh, and aClass.newInstance() will no longer work (or will it?) :-). Not
that we use it a lot.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Mar 02 2003 - 11:40:24 EST