I concur. Traits would be a hugely useful addition.
To make them really sing, however, one needs non-public interface
methods. For instance:
public interface Foo
{
public void doIt()
{
// default implementation logic implemented in terms of
getXInternal() and/or setXInternal()
}
protected X getXInternal();
protected void setXInternal(X x);
}
Either that or one needs to allow interfaces to have fields, which is
much uglier. Having non-public accessors allows one to have virtual
fields used in the default logic which can then be mapped as appropriate
as part of implementing the trait interface.
--
Jess Holle
Mark Derricutt wrote:
> Please please please bring on traits! I'm somewhat on the fence of
> rather seeing traits than closures in java sooner than the other.
>
> I'm finding LOTS of places in my code where traits would just make
> things cleaner.
>
> More and more I think I just want scala :)
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:15 PM, hlovatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
> I thinks that Traits are a great idea for Java and judging by #215 the
> posse, particularly Dick, like them. I wrote about them for Java 7 in:
>
> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=220916
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
>
> --
> "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized
> code." -- Bill Harlan
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
