Re: Why is a static protected field NOT protected as seems it should?
Norman wrote:
Why is a static protected field NOT protected as seems it should?
The non static protected field is protected as it should be according
to the book. See comments/questions below.
It is correct, per JLS ? 6.6:
.... if the member or constructor is declared protected, then access is
permitted only when one of the following is true:
o Access to the member or constructor occurs from within the
package containing the class in which the protected member or
constructor is declared.
o Access is correct as described in ?6.6.2.
?6.6.2:
A protected member or constructor of an object may be accessed from
outside the package in which it is declared only by code that is
responsible for the implementation of that object. [ The JLS then goes
on to qualify this more explicitly ]
To summarize access:
public = anyone can use
protected = those within the same package or subclasses
package-protected = only those within the same package can use
private = only the class can use
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth