pivot-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alejandro Vilar" <alejandro.vi...@synacom.com.bo>
Subject RE: Constant Interface Antipattern
Date Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:44:54 GMT
IMHO code into a  interface should not be implemented in any case, but I
understand your point of view, thanks for the quick response J.

 

Regards,

Alejandro

 

From: Greg Brown [mailto:gkbrown@mac.com] 
Sent: MiƩrcoles, 21 de Abril de 2010 06:19 p.m.
To: user@pivot.apache.org
Subject: Re: Constant Interface Antipattern

 

Technically, there's not much difference between ComponentListenerAdapter
and ComponentListener.Adapter. We chose to go with the latter because it
more strongly associates the adapter class with the interface definition and
reduces the number of source files to navigate.

 

 

On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Alejandro Vilar wrote:





Yes, I saw this in AWT/Swing but there is already an implementation into a
interface.

To provide default implementations, these implementations could be in
separate classes. Such as, ComponentListenerAdapter or simply Adapter or
maybe a AdapterFactory class and use the import static keyword. What do you
think?

 

From: Greg Brown [mailto:gkbrown@mac.com] 
Sent: MiƩrcoles, 21 de Abril de 2010 05:37 p.m.
To: user@pivot.apache.org
Subject: Re: Constant Interface Antipattern

 

No, the Adapter classes are used to provide default implementations of
listener interfaces so a caller isn't required to implement every method.
AWT has similar adapters.

 

 

On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Alejandro Vilar wrote:






Hi, just an observation but there are many places where this anti-pattern
appears, for example ComponentListener.Adapter, anybody aware of that?

 

Refs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_interface

http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/static-import.html

 

Cheers,

-Alejandro

 

 

 

 


Mime
View raw message