tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452132799793406054.post6313378249574430026..comments2024-03-11T11:06:32.525-05:00Comments on Programming Corner: Java PackagesProfessor Fontanezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05394788248244721514noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452132799793406054.post-65446124804389387732021-09-26T00:44:27.869-05:002021-09-26T00:44:27.869-05:00Let me first apologize for taking so long to reply...Let me first apologize for taking so long to reply. I hope you have the answer to this question already. But, if not, I hope my explanation helps clarify why this is the case. While packages can be seen as simply folders, they are certainly much more than that. Packages provide a namespace for the classes it contains. So, if you were to allow for default access modification to subfolders, then you will have to ensure that subpackages cannot contain duplicate names. That provision violates how operating systems manage files and folders. There are other complications, but this is the one, in my opinion, the main one.Professor Fontanezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11128801147764450134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7452132799793406054.post-86736545664781595022019-04-14T17:17:35.337-05:002019-04-14T17:17:35.337-05:00Really show how important package is, especially w...Really show how important package is, especially when working with others. I'm curious on the sub-package debate, that the default access modifier doesn't grant access to the sub-package. Is it because protected or public already grant access to the sub-package, and thus default has no need to do so? Or that private is already restricted enough that default is not needed? Bryan Diazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03266580974903660541noreply@blogger.com