Question on FileAdaptor

[Paul Tremblett <pt...@swva.net>]

I was wondering what the reason was behind assigning the default package scope to the member variable toWatch and to the method sendFile.

Thanks,
Paul Tremblett

Re: Question on FileAdaptor

[Paul Tremblett <pt...@swva.net>]

It was more a curiosity question that arose as I was reading the code. Maybe I just have too much time on my hands :-)

On Apr 2, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Ariel Rabkin wrote:

> What's the context for your question? Is there some use case you have
> in mind that justifies some other scope?
> 
> --Ari
> 
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Paul Tremblett <pt...@swva.net> wrote:
>> I was wondering what the reason was behind assigning the default package scope to the member variable toWatch and to the method sendFile.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Paul Tremblett
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ari Rabkin asrabkin@gmail.com
> UC Berkeley Computer Science Department
> 

Re: Question on FileAdaptor

[Ariel Rabkin <as...@gmail.com>]

I think the reason they're not private/protected is to make it easier
to write test cases that inspect the values of those variables.

There was no reason to make them public, since normally adaptors are
only managed via the fairly narrow Adaptor interface.

What's the context for your question? Is there some use case you have
in mind that justifies some other scope?

--Ari

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Paul Tremblett <pt...@swva.net> wrote:
> I was wondering what the reason was behind assigning the default package scope to the member variable toWatch and to the method sendFile.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul Tremblett



-- 
Ari Rabkin asrabkin@gmail.com
UC Berkeley Computer Science Department