Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Can't you have an onSetRequired() callback? Or would that be even nastier?
I thought you had gone through this issue? If a child class provides
a onSetRequired() but a grand child wants to override it, it still
has to override it. Then why not just let the child and grand child
override setRequired()?
I think onXXX() callbacks only make sense when the effect can't be
achieved with simple method override, eg, cases like:
void foo() {
do something;
onXXX();
do something;
onYYY();
do something;
}
> That would be exactly what I want, though bloats our already not tiny
> API, but the main problem then still is that users can override
> isRequired.
Why not make isRequired() final?
