On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 2/4/10 8:54 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<[email protected] >> >wrote: >> I'd be careful to remove interfaces. As an API you have to allow the >> broadest range of implementation possibilities. Interfaces are good to >> have. >> When in doubt keep the interface. >> >> > > Another possibility (in conjonction with he fact that we might want to have > schema aware entries) is to use a factory to build entries, instead of > having a constructor. > > If we have to keep the Interface, what would be the name for the class ? > EntryImpl ? DefaultEntry? > > I see what you're getting at. Sometimes I feel like this IEntry for the interface name might be best so there's room to have a simple Entry class as the default implementation while still offering an interface to implement for API users. Alex
