"Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 ;)
:-)
> If you want to keep using the same name the standard way of doing it is to
> use something like
>
> interface Foo {}
> class AbstractFoo {}
yeah, thats cool, but what about JDBC? It's a bit late for that now isn't
it?
Geoff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
