Re: [jboss-dev] Abstract classes?

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(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ > jboss-development mailing list > jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development