On Saturday 23 March 2002 00:57, you wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: stephan beal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > On a related note: is there a good reason for not making Task an > > interface, > > and supplying an AbstractTask to subclass? Except for some > > "extends ..." and > > "implements ...." lines i can't imagine this not being > > backwards-compatible. > > Well, almost every task in existence today "extends Task". Make Task an > interface and they ain't going to work any more. You'd be hard pressed to > argue that that is backwards compatible.
sed is our friend: s/extends Task/extends AbstractTask/ -- ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qub.sourceforge.net - http://radioaqtiph.sourceforge.net http://www.countermoves.net - http://stephan.rootonfire.org "Unix: the shell is your oyster." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
