On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Emily Crutcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> It could work, though I found when I used this technique with > DatePicker (DatePicker extends AbstractDatePicker<MonthSelector, > CalandarView>), there was some feedback that having that abstract type layer > was slightly confusing because good OO practice implied that references > should then be typed as AbstractDatePicker, which then brought in the > complexity of the generic types back into the lives of the 90% who did not > care about the parameterized arguments. > I don't buy that argument -- the references shouldn't just blindly be the parent class or else we wind up with nothing but Object references. Instead, they should be at the level that makes sense, and if in their codebase it makes sense to use DatePicker than that is what they should use. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
