Re: [jboss-dev] Abstract classes?

That was the explanation I got, at some point: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." ;-) 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. > > 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 _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development