cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Polar Humenn <>
Subject Re: Checkstyle
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:31:37 GMT
Glynn, Eoghan wrote:
> *snip*
> As I said I'm agnostic to the PMD rule change. 
> However, I really don't see why there's such a big bones about giving
> the user a *choice* between implementing an interface and extending an
> abstract class. Especially since the class that started the whole
> debate, Polar's HttpBasicAuthSupplier, has such a tiny amount of
> implementation code in the base class. 
> Which now that I look at it again, I notice isn't even abstract. 

Well, first of call CXF doesn't have this/my patch to look at yet. 
Second of all, I was forced to make it a fully implemented class to 
avoid having "AbstractHttpBasicAuthSupplier" in my code, which is really 
what we are talking about. And that's what I am objecting to, is the 
rule is forcing me to do bad things.

I'm going back to making that class abstract. please.


> Which
> is odd, as having a default null-returning impl for
> getUserPassForRealm() can't be for backward compatability (as we know
> this method exists right now), and the user sortta has to override it
> (otherwise their HttpBasicAuthSupplier is kinda useless). Plus the PMD
> rule at issue doesn't even apply to HttpBasicAuthSupplier as its
> non-abstract. So I'm a bit confused now about what we're even arguing
> about ...
> One advantage of these automated rules is to head off religious debates
> on code style. I guess we loose that if we start endless debates about
> changing the rules. But I'm also really tiring of this debate, so lets
> just draw a line under it ...
> /Eoghan
>> - Dan
>> --
>> Dan Diephouse
>> Envoi Solutions
>> |

View raw message