And sometimes you even have interfaces with no methods. In this case it's a
"marker" (often a parent of other interfaces) and when used in method
signatures you get type checking.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Michael Schmalle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi,
> It's ICommand.
>
> The reason is you can stack interfaces on top of each other allowing more
> decoupling to the implementing concrete classes.
>
> This interface is obvious. Any class that implements it needs eval() and
> only eval. It's like a singleton declaration of implementation.
>
> If you jammed this evel() method into IUIComponent, maybe all components
> don't need eval. Make sense?
>
> Also another good example of this type of interface in the flex framework
> is IDataRenderer, it's only declared property is 'data'.
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:19 AM, flexaustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if someone can explain why you would need an interface
>> so short?
>>
>> INTERFACE:
>>
>> package my.package.area
>> {
>> /**
>> * Interface for methods that evaluate an object and return a result.
>> */
>> public interface IEval
>> {
>> /**
>> * Evaluates the input object
>> * @o the object to evaluate
>> * @return the computed result value
>> */
>> function eval(o:Object=null):*;
>>
>> } // end of interface IEval
>> }
>>
>> USAGE OF INTERFACE:
>>
>> if (value is IEval) { value = IEval(value).eval(o) };
>>
>> Cairngorm has a short interface like this as well, though I cannot
>> remember what it is. In Cairngorm they say its for naming or to make
>> the code easier to understand? I am just not sure why you would do
>> this? Help me see the light!
>>
>> TIA
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Teoti Graphix, LLC
> http://www.teotigraphix.com
>
> Teoti Graphix Blog
> http://www.blog.teotigraphix.com
>
> You can find more by solving the problem then by 'asking the question'.
>
>
