creadur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [tentacles] Interfaces and Abstract Classes
Date Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:35:43 GMT
On 2 April 2013 06:18, P. Ottlinger <pottlinger@aiki-it.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am 01.04.2013 10:02, schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin:
> > For application code, I think that it more obvious to model an interface
> > with an interface. When in this mode, I lean towards prefixing with 'I'
> > (rather than suffixing or prefixing implementations with Impl or
> Default).
>
> I'd definitely prefer the interface way instead of abstract classes.
>
> Instead of I-prefixing I'd have different names like:
> interface LicenceCheckable
> implementing class LicenceChecker
> if you don't like DefaultLicenceChecker.
>
>
> > I see tentacles as an application, so I lean towards conventional
> > application coding style and am less concerned about being able to
> > maintain binary compatibility going forward.
>
> To my mind it seems not relevant to remain binary compatible.
> Rat/Tentacles is a utility whose API is set by the version a customer is
> using.
>

If the API is not intended for public (external) use, then the Javadoc /
other docs should say so, and then there is no reason to maintain
compatibility.
However, if there is a public API, then compatibility of that API should be
maintained if at all possible.


> Cheers
> Phil
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message