commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Bourg <>
Subject Re: [configuration] Interface vs class
Date Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:05:34 GMT
Jörg Schaible a écrit :

> IMHO we should define what we want to reach. Adding a method to an interface does not
break *binary* compatibility of existing code. The method is simply not called. However, a
client will have to implement the new method, if CConf is a compile time dependency *and*
he uses an implementation not delivered by CConf. Maybe it is the best approach to have an
abstract base class and the interface. We have to tell our users, that they should extend
from the abstract class if they want to ensure backward compatibility for own implementations
of the Configuration interface. Point is, that it *is* only an advice/recommendation and something
like clirr will always report a violation in compatibility. Hoiwever, it is our desicion how
we should proceed.

Late comment on this topic, I agree with Jorg's proposal. I was a 
proponent of the abstract class approach, but if we keep the freedom of 
modifying the interface that's fine.

If we all agree on this, the corollary is that we could start enhancing 
the Configuration interface on the 1.x branch, right?

Emmanuel Bourg

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

View raw message