Re: Q: making 'bad' Constructors protected/private

From: Andrus Adamchik (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2003 - 11:04:56 EST

  • Next message: Holger Hoffstätte: "Re: Q: making 'bad' Constructors protected/private"

    Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
    > Currently many classes offer public constructors, only to blow up later
    > when they are used. Obvious candidates are classes like e.g. ObjectId,
    > Attribute, Relationship etc. I think the default Constructor should be at
    > least protected, so that confusion is restricted to subclasses.
    > Good idea?

    Maybe, but we need to make a decision on a per case basis. Is it
    possible that in some situations default constructor that does not work
    is simply a bug and we need to fix the bug and add a unit test?

    Andrus

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Mar 02 2003 - 11:06:24 EST