protected

This question already has an answer here: Why does the “protected” modifier in Java allow access to other classes in same package? 6 answers Modifier Class Package Subclass World public Y Y Y Y protected Y Y Y N no modifier Y Y N N private Y N N N public class a { protected int x; } public class b { b() { a A=new a(); A.x=9;//why we can access this field ? } } please help my to know the specific work of protected in Java Why? Because that's how the Java programming language was designed. There's not much more to it. Something that is protected is accessible from the class itself, classes in

Should I write JavaDoc for private or protected methods? And what about private variables? I see class examples on my Java book and the private variables are JavaDoc'ed. So I can't understand if it is a good practice to JavaDoc the private (or protected ) methods. AlexWien Yes you should write JavaDoc for private methods, and even when it is only for yourself. In 3 years when you have to change the code, you will be happy that you documented it. If you leave the company, or have to work on another project, your co-workers will be happy to have a documented code. Undocumented code has much

Well there is enough information about this subject. For example this thread was very clear to me: Difference between private, public, and protected inheritance Except one point; Why is it useful? Use public inheritance to reflect an is-a relationship . This is the main use for inheritance, especially in combination with virtual functions. It allows re-use of interface, not just of old code by new code, but also re-use of new code by old code! (because of virtual function dispatch at runtime). In exceptional circumstances, use private inheritance to reflect an is-implemented-in-terms-of

The keyword protected grants access to classes in the same package and subclasses ( http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html ). Now, every class has java.lang.Object as superclass ( http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Object.html ). Hence I conclude that every class may access java.lang.Object 's methods even if they are protected . Take a look at the following example: public class Testclass { public Object getOne() throws CloneNotSupportedException { return this.clone(); } public Object getTwo() throws CloneNotSupportedException { return ((Object)

I come from the Java EE world but now I'm working on a .Net project. In Java when I wanted to test a protected method it was quite easy, just having the test class with the same package name was enough. Is there anything similar for C#? Is there any good practice for unit testing the protected methods? I only found frameworks and people saying that I should test only public methods. It should be possible to do it without any framework… unarity You can inherit the class you are testing on your test class. public class Test1 : SomeClass { Asert.AreEqual(1, SomeClass.ProtectedMethod()); } Another

This question already has an answer here: Why can't I access C# protected members except like this? 7 answers I wrote the following code: public class A { protected string Howdy = "Howdy!"; } public class B : A { public void CallHowdy() { A a = new A(); Console.WriteLine(a.Howdy); } } Now, in VS2010 it results in the following compilation error: Cannot access protected member 'A.a' via a qualifier of type 'A'; the qualifier must be of type 'B' (or derived from it). This seems quite illogical to me - why can't I access the protected field of the class instance from a method of the class, which