Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
