I fully agree with Christian. regards, Maarten
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Christian Migowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/8/27, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Hi guys, >> >> while looking at the filters, I found a class name IoFilterAdapter. The >> javadoc says that this is an abstract class (but the class is _not_ avstract >> ;). >> >> So I have done some research in the code, and I found that we are using >> either AbstractXXX.java classes and XXXAdapter.java classes. I think this >> should be normalized in order to always use the same prefix or postfix. > > > I wouldn't do so. Even from only reading the Javadoc you can see they have > very distinct purposes: > > The *Adapter classes are convenience wrappers meant to be extended by the > user if he only wants to use a "subset" of the interfaces they implement. > Oh, and i use some of them and could imagine others as well, so it would be > an API breakage without a useful reason. > > The Abstract* classes are typical abstract classes providing common > functionality for Mina internal classes that "branch" later on to specific > implementations. > > > Applying a different naming scheme for the two purposes is logical and > useful - and should be in your "good documentation over everything" spirit. > The only thing i would change is to make all the adapter classes abstract > since they only implement "NOOP" actions for their purposes and are > therefore not very useful to instanciate from. > > > christian >
