[jboss-dev] Abstract classes?

[Jason T. Greene]

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