Ok, thanks for the explanation. No arguments here. I wasn't around during these decisions and I know you guys don't make these lightly. There's always a balance to achieve. Personally, though, I would rather see the lightest api possible in order to avoid overloading the brain.
Anyway, hope you don't mind if I continue to poke you about stuff like this. ;-) Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Rickard Öberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 6 May 2008 00:14 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [qi4j-dev] Question about design of class > inheritance in core api > > > David Leangen wrote: > > I don't see why Associtation should extend AssociationInfo, this doesn't > > seem like a proper hierarchy to me. > > If I remember correctly I think the initial idea was that we might want > to introduce more methods on AbstractAssociation, and which we didn't > want to have to implement in AssociationInfo's, which it should be > possible to delegate to from AssociationInstances. So, it's a forward > compatibility design decision really. We have a couple of those, and I > know that Niclas in particular is really picky about not doing stupid > design decisions in the API that will make it difficult to change or > evolve things in the future. > > It's not in the way now, other than being an unused potential, so for > now it remains I think. > > /Rickard > > _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
