Also keep in mind though that while a class can implement any number of interfaces, it can only be derived from one superclass (be it abstract or concrete)... unless you've got a language that supports multiple inheritance, but that isn't the norm these days. I could be wrong, but I think that's one of the reasons that a lot of people in the OO world recommend programming to interfaces instead of classes. It gives flexibility for the concrete class to "live" in more than one class hierarchy instead of needed to be subclassed from one particular class. HTH and have fun :)
On 1/17/06, Jason Daiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope you are not misreading this at all. After reading your post I went > back to the textbooks and went on line to review and you are correct. I'm > definitely using an Abstract class approach. My brain was telling me an > abstract class was something different. I know abstract classes are similar > to an interfaces but I didn't think they actually implemented stuff. But I > stand corrected as they do provide partial implementations which is exactly > what I'm doing. > > Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
