cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryoz...@iona.com>
Subject Re: Checkstyle
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:17:42 GMT
> I really don't like such generalizations. Just because there is a "high chance" that "the
user" will do something doesn't afford a
> regulation for prerequisites.

This is fare enough...Just out of curiosity and for my own education, I'd be interested to
see a practical example showing why would 
someone write the abstract class implementing the interface and then have this abstract class
as one of the (in or out) parameters 
in the method signature...

Thanks, Sergey



> Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> *snip*
>>
>> Either way, perhaps the checkstyle rule might be relaxed for abstract classes which
do not implement interfaces, otherwise if
>> they do then the high chance is the user will want to pass the interface around rather
than the abstract class.
>>
>
> I really don't like such generalizations. Just because there is a "high chance" that
"the user" will do something doesn't afford a
> regulation for prerequisites.
>
> Cheers,
> -Polar


Mime
View raw message