Patrick, you're the case in point. Because you don't use the abstract class, if we change the API later we will break your app.
Were you unable to use the abstract class? If the Activity interface were documented to encourage you to do so, would you have? When we break your app, will you be okay with that? On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Patrick Julien <[email protected]> wrote: > This is more in line with what we're doing. With what we experienced > with the ramp up to 2.1.0, we only use the Activity interface, we > don't use the default implementation and instead make our own for > common classes of use cases. > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 3:02 PM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Patrick Julien <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> I don't know since I don't know what your plans are, will just have to > >> trust you. > >> > >> That being said, the Activity interface is currently really nice and > >> it doesn't tie us down to a single class for inheritance. > > > > I have been very happy with the recent cases where I have used an > interface > > for the API but provided a default implementation, with the admonishment > > that implementing the interface without extending the default > implementation > > is likely to be broken in the future. That way the people that care more > > about being able to substitute alternate implementations or to use it > > without having to extend the implementation can implement the interface, > and > > those that care more about not being broken by future updates can extend > the > > default implementation. > > -- > > John A. Tamplin > > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > > > > -- > > 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
