On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Jerry Krinock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have written a class which is missing important behaviors that must be
> provided by subclasses. I create one like this:
>
> + (id)fooWithBar:(Bar*)bar_ {
> // A Bar instance knows which subclass of Foo is appropriate for it.
> // To find out, send it a -fooClass message.
> id instance = [[[bar_ fooClass] alloc] init] ;
> return [instance autorelease] ;
> }
>
> I'm trying to figure out what to call this. I read in "Cocoa Design
> Patterns" [1] about Abstract Classes, but my Foo doesn't seem to be quite an
> Abstract Class, since you could create one if you wanted to.
The question is not *can* you create one (because in ObjC you can
*always* create an instance of any class), the question is does it
make *sense* to create one. If the answer is yes, then the behavior
it's missing can't be *that* important. If the answer is no, then it's
an abstract class.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
