Actually not. The refactoring takes care of the 'grunt work' for you. The behavior is maintained, so IDEA isn't introducing any weird side-effects. After the push-down, you can use "GoTo->Implementation(s)" to visit the subclasses that are supposed to be the 'exception to the rule' -- which is presumably why you're pushing things down. You remain in control at all times.
I think in the future, a nice enhancement would be to be able to specify more detail in the type of push-down you want. For example, you could push down the method signature and a simple call to "super" as the implementation for the subclasses, while leaving the current implementation in the superclass. Then you could visit each subclass as necessary to enhance or replace the baseclass implementation. The other option is to fully push down the method into all the subclasses and remove the implementation from the superclass entirely. But I feel that the current implementation is fine for this version... it can be embellished later. "Richard S.Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > This seems kind of odd. Fowler's summary of "Push Down Member" is "Behaviour > on a superclass is relevant only for some of its subclasses." > > Surely pushing down to *every* subclass is totally pointless - If it was > relevent to every subclass you would have it on the superclass! > > On Wednesday 02 October 2002 17:11 pm, you wrote: > > Richard, > > "Push Members Down" currently pushes the members you have chosen to > > *all* subclasses of a class (to preserve original code behaviour). > > > > Friendly, > > Dmitry > > > > Richard S.Martin wrote: > > > I just trid to use this refactoring for the first time. My superclass has > > > several subclasses. I was expecting the dialogue to ask me which > > subclasses I > wanted the members to go into. Instead it failed because one > > of the > subclasses (which I didn't want the members to go into) was not > > checked out > of my version control system. The last thing I want to do is > > check it out, do > the refactoring, and then put the class back to how it > > was before. > > > > Is this a bug? Or a discrepency between my understanding of this > > refactoring > and IntelliJ's? > > > > > > > > > > > =========================================================================== > >=== > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are > > addressed. All information is the view of the individual and not > > necessarily the company. If you are not the intended recipient you are > > hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this > > communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this email in error please notify: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > =========================================================================== > >=== > > > > > > > ============================================================================ == > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. All information is the view of the individual and not necessarily the company. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ============================================================================ == > _______________________________________________ Eap-bugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-bugs
