commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Colebourne <>
Subject Re: [math] 1.1 clirr report, backward compatibility
Date Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:52:37 GMT

Simon Kitching wrote:
> So looking at possible solutions...
> The current situation is:
>   interface Foo
>   class Impl implements Foo
> Is it possible to do this?
>   interface ExtendedFoo implements Foo
>   class Impl implements ExtendedFoo
> In this way, Foo doesn't change, but new code can pass objects around as
> ExtendedFoo in order to access the new functionality.
> [NB: I'm not actually suggesting a literal use of the prefix Extended. A
> real, meaningful, name should be selected]
> Alternatively how about this?
>   interface NewStuff
>   class Impl implements Foo, NewStuff

Indeed, all are possible solutions, as is
interface Foo2 extends Foo

Also, if you haven't read it, is a 
*very* good read on this topic.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message