commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [configuration] Interface vs class
Date Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:23:36 GMT
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
>
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I agree. I must have missed the earlier discussion as well.  I
>> definitely prefer having an interface that can be used whenever a
>> specific implementation is not required.
>
> The original arguing was, that an interface will always prevent an
> enhancement because of backward compatibility. This is especially true for
> the current Configuration code base.
>
> Whenever I get a Configuration object passed, I cast it quite immediately to
> an AbstractConfiguration to set the delimiter and throw mode. If
> Configuration itself were an abstract class, those methods could have been
> added long ago without breaking backward compatibility.
>
> Look through the archives, the discussion with pros and cons went on
> promoting commons-proxy.

Yes they did!  I remember it well and I hated using a class rather
than an interface.  However, I can see the merit in the decision when
it comes to maintenance and backward compatibility.  As a "purist", it
just hurt! ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message