cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Polar Humenn <phum...@iona.com>
Subject Re: Checkstyle
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:23:01 GMT

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