> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 April 2007 21:15 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Checkstyle > > Eoghan - does this really bug you enough that you would be > really upset if I changed it?
Nope, go ahead ... /Eoghan > 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 >
