Any part of my point is that making sure it remains a trivial class with only no-ops means you don't need to mock it. Is that a reasonable assumption?
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Julien <pjul...@gmail.com> wrote: > making it a class instead of an interface means we can't mock it anymore. > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: > > We're making a few breaking changes in 2.1.1 to the new features > introduced > > in 2.1. (We're not supposed to do that kind of thing, but are hoping to > get > > away with it in this quick follow up release before there is much > > adoption.) > > I'd like to add a change to Activity to that list, in order to allow it > to > > evolve in later releases when breakage of any kind won't be an option: > I'd > > like to make Activity an abstract class instead of an interface, > basically > > rename AbstractActivity. > > Any objections? > > rjrjr > > > > -- > > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
