Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9481

Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	markspace <-@.>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common
Date	Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:37:10 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	19
Message-ID	<j8vc3o$sks$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<22857359-211e-443e-9c5d-6cc2f5bd971b@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Injection-Date	Fri, 4 Nov 2011 00:37:13 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info	mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="XjIWM99mD7Ijfdu600oVPA"; logging-data="29340"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+F026f6RCTZU3a99gjiVweLkuIkPbbYOQ="
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
In-Reply-To	<22857359-211e-443e-9c5d-6cc2f5bd971b@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock	sha1:TdcNscaAj4ugSbq5IEzE8kSfaVQ=
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9481

Show key headers only | View raw

On 11/3/2011 4:09 PM, KevinSimonson wrote:
> So I created an abstract class called<SearchResult>  that has no

In the real world, when there's a class like this, there's usually some 
meta data that can decode which type is being returned.  As Arne points 
out, there's usually also a "getAsType" method.  For example, the JDBC 
object has various "getBoolean()" and "getBlob()" methods for accessing 
database columns, as well as metadata describing the object.

While not the best over all (JPA is better, generally, than JDBC), it's 
more structured that just an abstract class with no methods.

I might say that no methods = interface (called a mixin), but I think 
the potential to add common methods here is high.  So, use a base class 
so that you don't get tripped up by Java's single inheritance.  It's the 
most conservative approach in this case.

Thread

Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common KevinSimonson <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 16:09 -0700
  Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 19:32 -0400
  Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-03 17:37 -0700
    Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 18:10 -0700
      Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-03 18:46 -0700
  Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-03 22:06 -0700
  Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Ian Pilcher <arequipeno@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 00:06 -0500
  Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-04 17:57 +0100
  Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2011-11-04 13:54 -0700
    Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-08 23:15 +0100
      Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2011-11-08 20:58 -0800
  Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-04 15:17 -0700
  Re: Abstract Class versus an Interface, when no Members in Common Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-08 23:13 +0100

csiph-web