I really don't like such generalizations. Just because there is a "high chance" that
"the user" will do something doesn't afford a
regulation for prerequisites.
This is fare enough...Just out of curiosity and for my own education, I'd be interested to see a practical example showing why would
someone write the abstract class implementing the interface and then have this abstract class as one of the (in or out) parameters
in the method signature...
Thanks, Sergey
Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
*snip*
Either way, perhaps the checkstyle rule might be relaxed for abstract classes
which do not implement interfaces, otherwise if
they do then the high chance is the user will want to pass the interface around
rather than the abstract class.
I really don't like such generalizations. Just because there is a "high chance" that
"the user" will do something doesn't afford a
regulation for prerequisites.
Cheers,
-Polar
