Eoghan - does this really bug you enough that you would be really upset if I changed it? I don't think it will kill anyone if we allow classes without Abstract/Factory/Base, and it will certainly make names clearer for some cases as well as stop breaking the aegis stuff.
- Dan On 4/4/07, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/4/07, Glynn, Eoghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So the abstract base class is in my view a convenience that the user may > choose to take advantage of, or not, as the case may be. But they should > not be forced to do so. So AbstractWSFeature is grand, as long there's > also a WSFeature interface that the user can choose to implement > directly. The whole point is to not have an interface for forward compatability so users don't shoot themselves in the foot. For instance, JAX-WS has Endpoint, Service, Provider, and ServiceDelegate. Can you imagine how awkward it would be for users if they were using AbstractEndpoint all the time? Interfaces for all these classes would be completely redundant/useless for users as well. Anyway, I don't really feel like arguing this anymore, but I agree with Polar and I think we should make the change. This really won't harm anyone, and will only serve to make our code clearer. - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
-- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
