So, I propose to remove the "AbstractClassName" module from checkstyle.
Should there be more argument, a vote, or somebody just does it?
I'm not a committer.
I'd like this done before I submit a patch for HTTPConduit stuff.
Cheers,
-Polar
Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Thanks, I agree that my generalization was wrong...I was still think
about abstract classes as the sceletal impls of the non-trivial
interfaces when suggetsing that...
Cheers, Sergey
----- Original Message ----- From: "Polar Humenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Checkstyle
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
