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 14:28:47 GMT
Thanks, I agree that my generalization was wrong...I was still think about abstract classes
as the sceletal impls of the non-trivial 
interfaces when suggetsing that...

Cheers, Sergey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Polar Humenn" <phumenn@iona.com>
To: <cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Checkstyle


>
> abstract class Myclass implements java.util.Observer
>
> Does the the class name really have to be an "AbstractObserver"?
>
> Cheers,
> -Polar
>
> Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> 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