Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Interface with implied Constructor
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:08:20 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <kse1oo$is8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <krgpcp$pba$1@speranza.aioe.org> <925adeb1-65b5-4a50-86a8-4f04784f8da0@googlegroups.com> <kri3sj$lnl$1@speranza.aioe.org> <b4g0e8F35pjU1@mid.individual.net> <Qo1Gt.8876$2C2.1824@fx04.iad> <n45ju8laf3gcaqtlerq776rti1jtid53j9@4ax.com> <kscaks$4qd$4@dont-email.me> <5CiGt.85244$ny.24125@fx14.iad> <kscd66$pj$1@dont-email.me> <LdkGt.47451$a85.38063@fx03.iad> <ksd4ga$75i$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:02:16 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0d73d8cc209bff1c6395088b400d0605"; logging-data="19336"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SpuwLWUPQCPFnBbC6gP4q"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
In-Reply-To: <ksd4ga$75i$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sk8ynOhBkLVA9JxEXutO1PINWrs=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:24774

On 7/20/2013 12:42 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 7/20/2013 7:46 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>[...]
>> But like I said I don't think much of any system that attempts to
>> mandate how a class builds itself. I always figured that was up to the
>> class itself.
>
> I didn't say "mandated" and I'm not sure anyone else did besides yourself.
>
> In the case of my Applet where I'm controlling the mainline (via and
> init() method ironically enough). The user-supplied class, for getting
> things like username/password etc and optionally displaying a console
> window, is going to be pretty specialized. However, if a generic(ish)
> class you have happens to provide an opportunity for code re-use then
> that's peachy. The closest I get to "mandatory" is to say "Regardless of
> any other constructors, I require you to provide either an empty
> constructor or one which takes a Tier3Ambience object as its only
> parameter".

     So: Not "mandatory," but "required."  Subtle.

     Is this like the United States' "voluntary" income tax payments?
(You don't *have* to pay the tax, but if you don't the government
may garnish your wages, seize your property, and/or put you in jail.
The choice is entirely yours, to make as freely as you please.)

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid