abstract class Myclass implements java.util.Observer
Does the the class name really have to be an "AbstractObserver"?
Cheers,
-Polar
Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
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
