dhol68 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> ...maybe i'm missing something, but why define the interface ops in the
> abstract class? Just do nothing with them in the abstract class and create
> a
> default implementation in the baseclass.....the interface def will enforce
> an implementation anyway in the base class and the defualt imple we need
> it
> to be able to compile the stuff...
>
Yes, this is a good point. We need a default impl to be able to compile. But
why
we generate the default implementation not in the abstract class?
If you want you can overwrite them in the manual-base class.
This keeps the manual-base class as small as possible.
On the other hand, with this approach, the manual-base class contains only
manuall writen (customized) code.
But, in fact, I can live with bouth solutions ;-)
Regards
Darius
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-Cartridges%3A-JavaBasic--Should-methods-definded-in-an-Interface-be-abstract-in-the-AbstractClass--tf3768454s17564.html#a10678701
Sent from the Fornax-Platform mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Fornax-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer
