Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 341207

Summary:	'private' vs. Design for extensibility
Product:	[Modeling] EMFT	Reporter:	Boris holzer <boris.holzer>
Component:	MWE	Assignee:	Project Inbox <emft-mwe-inbox>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	minor
Priority:	P3	CC:	sven.efftinge
Version:	1.1	Flags:	sven.efftinge: indigo+
Target Milestone:	M7
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:

Description Boris holzer

2011-03-29 06:38:34 EDT

Build Identifier: M20110210-1200

I don't want to argue - feel free to close this issue if you don't agree - but I don't want be annoyed either:

I think it's a good idea for frameworks which are designed for extensiblity that framework's classes make their features visible in subclasses - i.e. one should prefer the keyword 'protected' and use 'private' carefully.
The actual trigger for this issue was org.eclipse.emf.mwe2.runtime.workflow.AbstractCompositeWorkflowComponent 
which has private children and just a setter.

I suggest to scan the FW for classes which are intended to be subclassed and make heavy use of the 'private' keyword. 



Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Sven Efftinge

2011-03-29 08:01:31 EDT

I have added a protected getter method for the specific case. We generally use protected for methods but for fields we stick to private. Fields in API don't allow any indirection or delegation anymore in future changes. Please reopen for any additional concrete cases.