If a subclass overrode getRenderer(), it likely kept the same access
control:
protected Renderer getRenderer()
If we changed the superclass to public, the above code would no longer
compile because it would be restricting the access of its superclass.
-- Blake Sullivan
On 4/3/12 10:45 AM, Frank Caputo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> pragmatic developers love utility methods and I wonder why simply increasing the visibility is an incompatible change. Shouldn't JSF applications designed for older versions run with that new method without any problems?
>
> Frank Caputo
>
> Am 03.04.2012 um 18:49 schrieb Blake Sullivan:
>
>> I assumed that the original designers were enforcing the idea that Renderers are an implementation detail and not required, however I agree that the distinction isn't especially important--returning null is plenty fine.
>>
>> The lame part is that simply making getRenderer() public would be an incompatible change at this point, so we are stuck adding something like this to UIComponent:
>>
>> public final Renderer reallyGetRenderer()
>> {
>> return getRenderer();
>> }
>>
>> -- Blake Sullivan
>>
>> On 4/3/12 7:30 AM, Edward Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:15:24 -0400, Kito Mann<kito.mann_at_virtua.com> said:
>>> KM> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Edward Burns<edward.burns_at_oracle.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:31:59 -0500, Kito Mann<kito.mann_at_virtua.com>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>> KM> Is there any reason UIComponent.getRenderer() is protected instead of
>>> KM> public? It'd be nice if it were public, especially when writing test
>>> KM> code.
>>>
>>> EB> Just your garden variety information hiding principles. Does anyone
>>> EB> else want this? It seems a pity to add a new public method just for
>>> EB> testing purposes. At this point, we must undertake the addition of new
>>> EB> API with the greatest care and moderation.
>>> EB>
>>>
>>> KM> Understood, but why does this information need to be hidden?
>>>
>>> I would have to do some list forensics to uncover that. Do you think
>>> it's worth our time to research that?
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>