Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] RC1 Code Review - persistence

[David Dykstal <dykstal@xxxxxxx>]

Done.

Interface members are automatically public so I didn't think it was  
necessary to have the public declaration. Is this something we should  
be doing by convention?

-- Dave 

On May 25, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Oberhuber, Martin wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> I reviewed yesterday's changes and I have some questions
> and requests:
>
> * IRSEPersistableContainer.NO_CHILDREN
>   should be explicitly declared public
>   and please add Javadoc for it
>
> * ISystemProfile.setActive()
>   Javadoc: can you explain what the "active" state means?
>
> * ISystemProfileManager.getActiveSystemProfilePosition()
>   You deprecated this. Whenever you deprecate something,
>   please leave a note what other mechanism the client can
>   use to accomplish what used to be accomplisehd by that
>   method!
>
> * PropertyList, RSEPersistableObject, Messages.java:
>   Please use the "Fix Copyrights" tool. It has a slightly
>   different default comment format built in than you are
>   using. We should have a consistent comment format everywhere.
>
> Can you please answer and/or address these.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Martin Oberhuber
> Wind River Systems, Inc.
> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-tm-dev mailing list
> dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-tm-dev