Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Klemme Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Interface with implied Constructor Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:53:52 +0200 Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <925adeb1-65b5-4a50-86a8-4f04784f8da0@googlegroups.com> <51df65bd$0$52780$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net bIg+0GAegFmJLMz7YAFx7QW83365Q5Sy6pXZBIH0L/bahbxu0= Cancel-Lock: sha1:6mECKoviu/ng4xoPRfAkCpX6mjo= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 In-Reply-To: <51df65bd$0$52780$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130714-0, 14.07.2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:24734 On 12.07.2013 04:11, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: > There's a builder pattern than works. It's a little ugly but it's what > you have when you can't use abstract classes for some reason. Move > around the interfaces as you see fit. I'd call that "factory pattern". Why did you pick "builder"? Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/