Christian Migowski wrote:
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'm just trying to stick with the semantic.
I begin to think that Adapter means something horrible horrible in french.
It depends on the body part you are thinking of ;)
My, what a complete waste of time this thread is.
Well, not that much. IMHO, it's much better to discuss such things on
the ML than brutally commit the code, and wait for a reaction (which
will certainly not come, as almost nobody is watching the commits ;)
And as far as we are moving toward a 2.0 RC, it's better to avoid
committing code blindly, as it may break users' applications... Keep in
mind that this is what makes it a community : we have different
opinions, and it's _always_ better to express them (as soon as it does
not become personal).
Ok, you didn't convinced me, but that does not mean I'm right :) This
class won't be renamed.
Thanks !
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
