The distinction, in my mind, is that AbstractEngine is incomplete (it has unimplemented abstract methods), while DefaultEngine would be a complete implementation that could be used as-is or extended.
On 4/23/05, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Karthik Abram <karthik.abram <at> neovera.com <http://neovera.com>> > writes: > > > > > So why does having "Abstract" in an abstract class make sense? Clearly > > "public abstract class" is equally unequivocal. > > That's right. In my opinion names like AbstractEngine, AbstractPage are > poor names. For example, AbstractPage should just be called DefaultPage > or something else. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator, Jakarta Tapestry Creator, Jakarta HiveMind Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
