Re: [jboss-dev] Abstract classes?

Adrian Brock wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 17:26 +0200, Ales Justin wrote: >> 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. > > "Abstract" has nothing to do with the "abstract" keyword in java. > > Except that the semantic is similar. > i,e. The classes are not usable by themselves, they usually need to be > extended or are at least designed to be mainly extended if you don't > want "noop" behaviour. Then there should be no reason to instantiate it. > The rest of the argument is just "humpty dumpty". > > <quote>When I use a word it means exactly what I say it means; > no more, no less.</quote> The humpty dumpty argument is very weak. Following this argument, I could call every class StringXXX, since the code making up the class itself is a String. This, however, does not make it a good name. Names are completely meaningless if they do not convey a meaning to someone besides the author. That is unless you intend on being the only person to use it.