Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #24811

Re: Interface with implied Constructor

Show key headers only | View raw

On 7/23/2013 5:32 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:02:05 -0400, Eric Sosman
> <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2013 3:39 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> [...] I just want a  prototype of the
>>> constructor with the rest of the prototypes.
>>
>>      I don't think anyone's in doubt about what you and Richard
>> want.  The question that still burns is:
>>
>>                                "Why?"
>
>       An interface documents.  I can put additional comments in there
> and do because it helps the signatures make sense.  Since I have all
> this, why not have the constructors there, too?  Then, I have the API
> documented in one place.

     An interface documents -- and also specifies, mandates,
requires, and enforces.

>>      Perhaps if you'd offer a concrete example...?  To avoid charges
>
>       Read my pargraph above.
>
>> of made-up-ness, take an existing interface that you think would be
>> more useful if it could specify constructors, and exhibit the
>> constructors you'd like it to specify.  Please use an interface
>> that's not some creature of your own; if the idea is useful, there
>> surely must be some java or javax interfaces that could use it.
>> (If there aren't, that casts some doubt on the utility of the
>> construct ...)
>
>       It would document the class in one place.

     Are you proposing to do away with the class' own JavaDoc?
Also, what happens to "in one place" when a class implements
more than one interface?

>       I have already done this.  I added comments to my interfaces
> stating what the constructor signatures were.  I would like to have
> Java enforce constructor signatures.  Note that I am fine with this
> being optional so you need not worry about it.
>
>>      Then, maybe, we can get away from this childish "It's behavior!"
>> "No, it's implementation!" back-and-forth.  A use case, please.
>
>       For me, it is such a general situation that a use case is gilding
> the lily.  If you were to ask me for a use case for using a for
> statement, it would be about the same level.

     That level being "beneath contempt," I guess?

     In summary, we've still seen not even one use case.  We've
seen assertions by you and by Richard that the capability would
be of great utility, yet nobody's offered even one example of
a "well-known" interface that could benefit from it.  That, I
think, should raise a doubt or two.

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

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

Thread

Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-09 18:41 +0800
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-09 04:08 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 06:46 +0800
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-09 21:08 -0400
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-11 19:11 -0700
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-14 17:53 +0200
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-15 08:58 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-15 10:57 -0700
              [OT] Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-15 14:13 -0400
                Re: [OT] Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-15 12:58 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-15 20:45 +0200
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-14 18:03 +0200
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-18 23:21 -0300
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-19 12:38 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 17:56 -0300
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-22 12:39 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-22 16:02 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-22 18:08 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-23 14:32 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-07-23 14:43 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-24 13:27 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-24 18:20 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-26 00:03 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-24 21:18 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-24 17:42 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-23 18:19 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-24 13:31 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-07-27 04:06 +0100
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-19 21:21 +0000
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 18:56 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-19 18:10 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 20:46 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-20 12:42 +0800
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-20 09:08 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 09:08 -0400
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-19 19:20 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-19 20:11 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-20 12:26 +0800
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-20 09:38 -0300
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 19:46 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-20 19:12 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 17:12 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-20 21:18 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-21 12:13 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 16:18 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-21 13:45 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-21 16:58 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 21:19 -0300
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 20:09 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 20:21 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-07-20 23:17 +0200
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 17:32 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-07-21 00:10 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 17:53 -0300
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-09 18:13 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 18:03 +0800
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-10 08:41 -0700
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-11 06:53 +0800
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-09 21:41 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 17:55 +0800
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-10 14:52 -0700
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-07-10 16:02 -0700

csiph-web