Alex Karasulu wrote:
Pretty much agree myself but I don't think Adapters need to be abstract.
Again, these classes are _not_ adapters, wrt the definition of the
adapter pattern. That's my point. And when the javadoc says that the
class is abstract, I'm expecting to see an 'abstract' keyword. Or maybe
the javadoc is incorrect.
Ok, to be very clear : I don't want to start a debate or a flamewar
about this, because it's really not important. It was just because I
don't find it consistent to have 6 so called Adapters when everywhere in
the code, we are using Abstract classes instead. I really wanted to know
if there were some pretty good reasons to have followed a different
patterns in those cases, something which is absolutely not an evidence
when you look at the javadoc and at the implementation. That's it.
You may after all want to instantiate a NOOP instance for whatever reason.
Very true. But it has to be something you have to need, too. Otherwise,
if it's only for the beauty of instanciating NOOP objects, well, it
enters in the YAGNI category ... :)
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
