> The BaseFoo and Foo classes are designed so that they both have to be > present. The BaseFoo class is contains code that can be regenerated and > any modifications should be made to Foo. One case for referencing Foo > in BaseFoo is when instantiating a new Foo as happens in the copy > method. BaseFoo is abstract as there should not be any instances of > BaseFoo. > > If you want to create a separate package, just extend from Foo in the > new package. Though I do not see the reason for doing so. > > john mcnally
I'm not actually going to extend it in another package, just in another directory tree so that my auto-generated Java classes are kept separate from my editable classes. It just seems like a violation of OO principals for a base class to depend on it's sub class, that's all. Typically if a base class needs to manipulate sub-classes it does so using factory methods and not direct references. Again, I'm not suggesting that this is horribly evil, just that it seems odd and maybe isn't necessary. -Robert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
