On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 09:50 Europe/London, Greg Wilkins wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 02:02 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:Jeremy Boynes wrote:My god Greg, get a real IDE, and click the implement interface button, or click the delegate button and done with it.
> I think a concrete class hierarchy is easiest here, with the Geronimo
> POJOs extending the Standard ones. That way tools can work with standard
> objects or geronimo objects as they like (provided they remain
> consistent) - this fits Aaron's use cases and I think simplifies the
> structure.
That approach is going to result in some really ugly duplication of code and hundreds of extra implementation methods.
you're joking right???
This is not just about code duplication - I was just responding to the
suggestion that my proposal is more complex or more code. The main issue
that I started talking about is that the type hierarchy is wrong.
I'd agree completely with Greg's view here. It's not about inheritance for the sake of it; it's about getting the type hierarchy right.
This can also be achieved with interfaces rather than classes, but I don't see the rationale for not having an abstract supertype for the Session/Entity/Message beans. [It may be necessary to also have a separate supertype for Session/Entity as well, since there are such issues with the way in which the various Contexts work.]
So I am not proposing change based on code volume - I'm proposing change
because the design is currently not correct.
+1
Alex.
