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 20:14:55 GMT
Eoghan - does this really bug you enough that you would be really upset if I
changed it? I don't think it will kill anyone if we allow classes without
Abstract/Factory/Base, and it will certainly make names clearer for some
cases as well as stop breaking the aegis stuff.

- Dan

On 4/4/07, Dan Diephouse <dan@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>



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

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