2008/8/28, Julien Vermillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, > > > 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. > > Well here Abstract & Adapter are different, I start to think a lot of > Java programmer understand it as Christian. After checking there is a > lot of them in the JRE.
This has nothing to do with being a java programmer (actually, i became one just one year ago, before i was messing long years with c/c++) but with common sense. it is nowhere written that you can't use a name that is used coincidently by a design pattern only if it implements this design pattern. An adapter is something your application can... adapt :) I begin to think that Adapter means something horrible horrible in french. My, what a complete waste of time this thread is. regards, christian > > > > 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 ... :) > > > > Agreeing here, let's avoid the confusion and make them abstract, in no > way it's concrete classes. Users will just make an anonymous instance > for special cases described by Alex. > > Julien > >
