Julien Vermillard wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:44:09 +0200
Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Well it's not the only meaning of ..Adapter in Java, for example :
http://www.ryerson.ca/~dgrimsha/courses/cps840/adapter.html
It's just dummy implementation to listener interface, mainly.
maybe... I just don't really like the mismatch between the header where
this class is being described as Abstract, when it's not, plus the fact
that if this class is not abstract, it's just because we have used it
into tests, in order to inject dummy filters into a chain. Not sure that
it was intended... (IMHO, defining a NoopFilter would have been slightly
better.)
Personally I don't care much, but I think if it make some sense as
Christian described (adapter for dummy iface implementation and
abstract for base classes for implementation) keep it.
Yep, it doesn't matter a lot. Again, I didn't want this to become a big
debate, just wanted to have a kind of consistence in the project.
Anyway, seems like my idea is not shared, so fuck it :)
I will just fix the header, to remove the mention of this class being
abstract.
Thanks a lot for your opinions !
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
