Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9495

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

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!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 18:46:57 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	27
Message-ID	<j8vg6j$ihn$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<22857359-211e-443e-9c5d-6cc2f5bd971b@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <j8vc3o$sks$1@dont-email.me> <21089688.186.1320369008216.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prev11>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Injection-Date	Fri, 4 Nov 2011 01:47:00 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info	mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="XjIWM99mD7Ijfdu600oVPA"; logging-data="18999"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eRMJSMRLO609uIFkBSmUE5MlDH+dWbwQ="
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
In-Reply-To	<21089688.186.1320369008216.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prev11>
Cancel-Lock	sha1:RjRDAVNmnxJpx2rILPzLylKxetM=
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9495

Show key headers only | View raw

On 11/3/2011 6:10 PM, Lew wrote:

> The OP's approach seems somewhat hackish, based on the paucity of
> information provided so maybe it isn't.  Would it work to make the
> varying type a generic parameter?

He'd have to add some sort of method(s) to support the generic 
parameter.  Some kind of generic mix-in:

public interface MixMe<T> {}

Seems silly to me, without something specified to be done with T.  Like 
wise a base class with a single generic getter:

public BaseGetter<U> {
   public U get();
}

doesn't seem any different than just making a regular non-generic 
sub-class.  Arne's point of just declaring the methods and return types 
you need in one class seems the most straight forward.

I think he just has to be prepared to refactor a lot of code when the 
right way to do it becomes apparent.  What he's got right now could go 
any way at all.

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