[jboss-dev] Abstract classes?

[Jason T. Greene]

Adrian Brock wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 08:33 -0500, Jason T. Greene wrote:
>> BTW for the record, I think seeing instances of AbstractXXX floating 
>> around in AS is actually pretty awesome ;)
>>
>> It's definitely a minor issue. I just don't want us defending every API 
>> design with self-serving bias.
>>
> 
> If you want a serious discussion then cool the ad-homeniem attacks.

It was definitey *not* intended as an attack. Sorry it was taken as 
such. I was trying to say the whole topic is nitpicky. I was also making 
a point that we all (hence usage of "us") need to take API critiques 
seriously, and not just pass it off as user-error.

> Frankly, I've got better things to do than worry about whether
> somebody can understand what a class does from its name without
> reading the javadoc or even the code (it is open source).

If we had good javadoc sure, but we don't. Yes everyone can figure 
everything out from reading the source, but we have a ton of source, and 
  its a gigantic waste of time for someone to figure out "how" and "why" 
X is the way it is, then ask the author wasting their time etc etc.

> The same goes for all the other "feeble" topics that have been drowning
> the dev-list recently. 

I didn't realize boot performance, redeployment behavior, public/private 
APIs, and embedded bootsrap are "feeble" topics. If you don't like them 
post something you want to talk about.

> If I see another topic on logging I might even unsubscribe from the
> list. ;-)

Yeah logging isnt sexy, but lately it has been a major problem for 
users, with numerous bugs associated with it.

> "Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic" is a phrase that springs
> to mind.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with less feeble topics of conversation.

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