Article:  |
10 Reasons We Need Java 3.0 | |
| Subject: | a bunch of amateur ideas... | |
| Date: | 2002-08-12 11:16:43 | |
| From: | jacyg | |
|
Response to: a bunch of amateur ideas...
|
||
|
mostly good, but clone() should not be a public method. See http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4673424.html for a better solution. The reason clone() should not be public is that it you may not *want* to externally expose the ability to clone an object, and having a clone() that is protected allows you to accomplish this. My proposed solution still gives this ability when truly wanted, without sacrificing the ability to keep clone() restricted. |
||
Women in Technology
Hear us Roar
