[jboss-dev] Abstract classes?

[Ales Justin]

I don't think they were ever truly abstract.

It just indicates that they are there as a default impl,
which you can easily override if in need of something more.

I agree with you that it's probably not the best name choice,
it could be Base or really Default,
but I think you should ping Adrian to explain you the real motivation 
behind the name.

David M. Lloyd wrote:
> I think they *were* abstract at one point, but then someone realized 
> that they shouldn't be, for whatever reason.  Seems like a bit of a 
> design red flag to me though.
> 
> - DML
> 
> On 05/25/2009 04:19 AM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> I have seen many classes in some JBoss core projects whose names start 
>> with "Abstract" but the classes are *not* abstract. Just to cite an 
>> example, there's AbstractInjectionValueMetaData - not picking on this 
>> specific class, but this is just an example. Any reason why we are 
>> naming them Abstract?
>>
>> regards,
>> -Jaikiran
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-development mailing list
>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>