On Sunday 24 March 2002 15:27 pm, Erik Hatcher wrote: > From: "stephan beal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Sunday 24 March 2002 13:51 pm, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > > (To me) it says "refactor it" - inheritance is a last resort! :) > > > > WHAT?!?!?! No offense, but i'm so shocked at that statement i don't even > > know what to say. > > (I won't bother to try to refute my statement - we'll leave it out there in > the open like that, and I know that there are many out there that agree and > know what I mean by that)
If the project as a whole shies away from subclassing and interfaces, why is Java the implementation language? i'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, but i can't help but get the sense that project is reluctant to take real advantage of some of Java's biggest strengths. To touch on the "refactor vs. subclass" debate: Typically, refactoring changes APIs and subclasses change behaviours. Every time a class is significantly refactored, it's subclasses are in danger of not working. Every time a leaf-node subclass is introduced to provide new behaviours, only that class is in danger of not working. i don't understand the aversion to subclassing, and especially don't understand the preference for refactoring over subclassing, especially considering that backwards compatibility has been the main argument for not making Task an interface. ----- stephan Generic Universal Computer Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.einsurance.de Office: +49 (89) �552 92 862 Handy: �+49 (179) 211 97 67 Student: "Master, you must teach me the way of liberation!" Master: "Tell me who it is that binds you." Student: "No one binds me!" Master: "Then why do you seek liberation?" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
