cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dan Diephouse" <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: Checkstyle
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:17:19 GMT
On 4/4/07, Glynn, Eoghan <eoghan.glynn@iona.com> wrote:
>
>
> So the abstract base class is in my view a convenience that the user may
> choose to take advantage of, or not, as the case may be. But they should
> not be forced to do so. So AbstractWSFeature is grand, as long there's
> also a WSFeature interface that the user can choose to implement
> directly.


The whole point is to not have an interface for forward compatability so
users don't shoot themselves in the foot.

For instance, JAX-WS has Endpoint, Service, Provider, and ServiceDelegate.
Can you imagine how awkward it would be for users if they were using
AbstractEndpoint all the time? Interfaces for all these classes would be
completely redundant/useless for users as well.

Anyway, I don't really feel like arguing this anymore, but I agree with
Polar and I think we should make the change. This really won't harm anyone,
and will only serve to make our code clearer.

- Dan


-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog

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