Why do you need a tag for that, rather than Javadoc? The only advantage
I could see for a tag would be if there were tool support for it so the
method didn't show up in code completion or something. Doubt that's
gonna happen.
I've certainly seen methods like you describe, and have probably written
some. Seems better to avoid if possible, particularly if invoking the
method screws things up if you don't understand the secrets of the class.
Slightly off topic, but I generally prefer writing a lot of interfaces
and clearly stating in both the interface javadoc and the impl class
javadoc that the interface is the API (or SPI). I then feel more
comfortable about adding methods to the impl class.
Galder Zamarreno wrote:
Hi,
Quite often when contributing in JBoss projects, I create extra
protected methods (i.e. setters)
to make my life a lot simpler when coding unit tests. People have
different opinions (such as
the messaging guys who believe every single UT should be coded to the
public API), but I
personally believe that you shouldn't be necessarily forced to set up a
complete environment
to run a specific UT. There're a lot of situations where it makes sense
to do this, but others where
not, and in the latter, having "shortcut" set up methods helps.
Sometimes, this "shortcut" methods are already there but other times are
not, hence my tendency
to create these protected methods. Now, wouldn't it be nice if there's
a Java tag
that could be applied to this methods to indicate that:
"this method is only here to make my unit-testing-coding-life easier and
so, should only be called from
unit tests, not from production code"
I had a quick look around and could not find anything. Do people
agree/disagree with creating such tag?
Cheers,
Galder
_______________________________________________
jbosscache-dev mailing list
jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev
--
Brian Stansberry
Lead, AS Clustering
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com