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