On 8/14/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
Hey, Al wrote that line, not me :)
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;
> }
I agree. In favor of onXX though is that it would be easier to
recognize that it is there for overriding and that users don't have to
call super (though the disadvantage of that can be seen in our
struggles with onAttach etc).
> > 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?
I think I would be ok with that. Though a similar case, isVisible, is
just to convenient to make final. So I can imagine there will be users
who rather override isVisible. Dunno, we could vote on it I guess.
Eelco
