Technically, there's not much difference between ComponentListenerAdapter and ComponentListener.Adapter. We chose to go with the latter because it more strongly associates the adapter class with the interface definition and reduces the number of source files to navigate.
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Alejandro Vilar wrote: > Yes, I saw this in AWT/Swing but there is already an implementation into a > interface. > To provide default implementations, these implementations could be in > separate classes. Such as, ComponentListenerAdapter or simply Adapter or > maybe a AdapterFactory class and use the import static keyword. What do you > think? > > From: Greg Brown [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Miércoles, 21 de Abril de 2010 05:37 p.m. > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Constant Interface Antipattern > > No, the Adapter classes are used to provide default implementations of > listener interfaces so a caller isn't required to implement every method. AWT > has similar adapters. > > > On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Alejandro Vilar wrote: > > > Hi, just an observation but there are many places where this anti-pattern > appears, for example ComponentListener.Adapter, anybody aware of that? > > Refs: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_interface > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/static-import.html > > Cheers, > -Alejandro > > >
