On Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:16:16 PM UTC+1, PhilBeaudoin wrote:
Just ran into an interesting little hack today. Basically, the interface
includes a method:
public void __do_not_implement_this_interface_extend_FooImpl_instead();
I'm far from convinced I like it, but it sure is right
Exactly, this is where I ran into this.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:16:16 PM UTC+1, PhilBeaudoin wrote:
Just ran into an interesting little hack today. Basically, the interface
includes a method:
public void
Nnnnevermind. I think it's too late for me to make this
not-terribly-popular change. It's already more widely adopted than I
realized internally, so I have to assume that's even more true externally. I
can't imagine such a break being well received.
(Yes, we're making more significant changes
On Thursday, December 9, 2010 7:04:39 PM UTC+1, rjrjr
wrote:Nnnnevermind. I think it's too late for me to make this
not-terribly-popular change. It's already more widely adopted than I
realized internally, so I have to assume that's even more true
externally. I can't imagine such a break being
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Nnnnevermind. I think it's too late for me to make this
not-terribly-popular change. It's already more widely adopted than I
realized internally, so I have to assume that's even more true externally. I
can't imagine such a
Basically we don't know exactly how we want to change the thing, but have a
feeling something will be needed. Re: composition or delegation, it always
happens, but I'm not sure that's a concrete issue yet. We could introduce an
IsActivity interface, but I don't see anywhere in the current GWT code
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Basically we don't know exactly how we want to change the thing, but have a
feeling something will be needed. Re: composition or delegation, it always
happens, but I'm not sure that's a concrete issue yet. We could introduce an
I hope that doesn't come across as having ignored Neil, John et al. I
do prefer using interface + abstract class, but I don't really believe
that people actually read JavaDoc, and I'm certain we need to mess with
this interface just a bit more.
--
Just ran into an interesting little hack today. Basically, the
interface includes a method:
public void __do_not_implement_this_interface_extend_FooImpl_instead();
I'm far from convinced I like it, but it sure is right in your face in
case you don't read javadocs! ;)
Philippe
On Wed, Dec 8,
On Wednesday, December 8, 2010 8:22:39 PM UTC+1, John A. Tamplin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Basically we don't know exactly how we want to change the thing, but
have a feeling something will be needed. Re: composition or delegation,
it always happens,
Tell me if I get this right, but the most important advantage of
having only an abstract class is that you are guaranteed your user
extends the abstract class instead of implementing the interface,
which let you easily extend it later (i.e. add methods) without
breaking existing user code?
On the
Sorry for being so prescriptive in my first email about interfaces and
mocking and starting a bit of a side discussion about interfaces Vs
abstract classes. It smells a little like a no-one-right-answer
discussion that has probably been debated in every API forum.
I think most people could live
Personally, I'm a fan of having both. The default implementation can
be an abstract class but have that abstract class implement the
Activity interface. Developers will be making a conscious choice to
use the interface only knowing that they can introduce bugs.
--
On 3 déc, 04:55, 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
14 matches
Mail list logo
