Vote Details for "ProtectedMembers" by thesaur

» Details
  • Voter: Klaus Guenther 
  • Vote: +1 (conditional)
  • Reviews: Deep source review, Run examples
» Comment
I'm +1 if protected methods/properties may be prefixed if they are package internal. That is, certain methods/properties must be defined as protected because of extending classes, however, they are not intended for use outside of the package. Prefixed protected items would be subject to change at any time. This closely reflects the usage of the original prefixing scheme, where the prefix demonstrated internal usage (often protected rather than true private). If this change is not incorporated, I'm -1.

Also, I don't think it would be a good idea to document protected methods/properties if the class is not meant to be extended in normal usage. And if extension is wished, all prefixed protected itmes should not be publically documented (beyond the generated API docs).