At 10:48 AM 6/4/01 +1000, Geoff Soutter wrote:
>However, what can they do? Presumably JDBC needs to change over time, and
>this means that those who attempt to implement the interfaces must update
>their stuff to be compatibile. Leaving JDBC set in stone for ever doesn't
>seem like a viable option.
nope though there is some people around here who suggest that it is ;)
>Or would you rather we do the MS thing and have
>CallableStatement2?
If you want to keep using the same name the standard way of doing it is to
use something like
interface Foo {}
class AbstractFoo {}
And suggest that most people extend AbstractFoo. When you need to change
Foo interface you also add methods to AbstractFoo that throw exceptions on
use, or perform noop.
Either way forward compatibility is easier and you still maintain the
advantages of having interface to define the comm layer.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
