Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2976

Re: Why only public methods on interfaces?

From	Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Why only public methods on interfaces?
Date	2011-04-08 00:24 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<inm2lj$a4e$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<25875c94-9af2-4d28-976d-2050a738ae2e@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <inlmpc$9tf$1@dont-email.me> <inlson$se7$1@Gaia.teknon.de>

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/07/2011 10:43 PM, Volker Borchert wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> You can use abstract classes where reasonable;
>
> No, you can't, at least in some cases, because Java does not support
> multiple inheritance... and there are cases where the memory overhead
> of a Delegate is not tolerable.

I said "where reasonable" did I not? I know that multiple inheritance 
renders flaws in using abstract classes, etc., etc., etc... but, given 
the little I know of this use case, abstract classes seem like a 
feasible way to go.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why only public methods on interfaces? kramer31 <kramer.newsreader@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 17:09 -0700
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-04-07 21:48 -0300
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-07 21:01 -0400
    Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2011-04-08 02:43 +0000
      Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-04-08 00:24 -0400
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-07 21:49 -0700
    Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Owen Jacobson <angrybaldguy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 01:01 -0400
      Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-07 22:37 -0700
        Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-04-08 00:14 -0700
          Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-08 06:59 -0700
            Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-04-08 07:17 -0700
              Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-04-08 08:59 -0700
                Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-04-08 17:27 -0700
                Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-09 22:14 -0700
                Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-09 22:28 -0700
                Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-10 16:02 +0100
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-04-08 03:18 -0700
    Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Esmond Pitt <esmond.pitt@bigpond.com> - 2011-04-08 20:32 +1000
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-08 20:34 +0100
  Re: Why only public methods on interfaces? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-04-10 18:10 +0100

csiph-web