Hi,
I think the version field must not be public, nor static or final. It can only be private, "package" or protected.
But in the answer you explain that it can have any acces modifier (so considering that public is permitted)
Do I mistake ?
Best regards,
Alex
About Question com.enthuware.ets.scbcd.v5.2.91 : Question 30 test 4
Moderator: admin
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10075
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:26 pm
- Contact:
Re: About Question com.enthuware.ets.scbcd.v5.2.91 : Question 30 test 4
Hi,
No restriction on access modifier is mentioned in 9.1.17 Version Annotation or anywhere else in the specification. The explanation does note that it cannot be static or final.
HTH,
Paul.
No restriction on access modifier is mentioned in 9.1.17 Version Annotation or anywhere else in the specification. The explanation does note that it cannot be static or final.
HTH,
Paul.
If you like our products and services, please help us by posting your review here.
Re: About Question com.enthuware.ets.scbcd.v5.2.91 : Question 30 test 4
Hi Paul, thanks for your answer.
I agree with your explanation.
But in 2.1 page 18 it is mentioned about instance variables of Entity that they must be protected, private or "default". So should we considerate that this paragraph exclude version instance variables ?
Regards,
Alex
I agree with your explanation.
But in 2.1 page 18 it is mentioned about instance variables of Entity that they must be protected, private or "default". So should we considerate that this paragraph exclude version instance variables ?
Regards,
Alex
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10075
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:26 pm
- Contact:
Re: About Question com.enthuware.ets.scbcd.v5.2.91 : Question 30 test 4
You are right. Section 2.1 indeed says that. This should apply to @Version field as well. This has been fixed.
thanks for your feedback!
thanks for your feedback!
If you like our products and services, please help us by posting your review here.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests