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.
--
Jason T. Greene
JBoss, a division of Red Hat