RE: [xml-dev] XML as "passive data" (Re: [xml-dev] The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

Class invariants are alternatives to private methods and members in simple cases. However, I do agree that in many cases having private members can be rendered irrelevant if class invariants are used. 
 
Where security is a primary concern I'd rather trust the use of private members and methods than class invariants though. Of course, my lack of experience with Eiffel may be the reason I tend to prefer Java/C#/C++ constructs. :) 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Berend de Boer [mailto:berend@xsol.com] 
	Sent: Wed 10/23/2002 1:29 PM 
	To: K. Ari Krupnikov 
	Cc: Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev 
	Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML as "passive data" (Re: [xml-dev] The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
	
	

	K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
	
	>I disagree. Making something private marks it as unimportant to the
	>user (who, as the saying goes, might be you in three months).
	>
	No, making something private is mainly a hack by languages that don't
	have class invariants. Visibility of features to clients comes secondary
	here.
	
	Regards,
	
	Berend. (-:
	
	
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
	initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
	
	The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
	
	To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
	manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>