Pretty much agree myself but I don't think Adapters need to be abstract. You may after all want to instantiate a NOOP instance for whatever reason.
Alex On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > 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 > > >
