[jboss-dev] Abstract classes?

[Dimitris Andreadis]

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 at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-development mailing list
>> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
>>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development