Excellent! Chris Lambrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/17/2004 04:32:28 PM:
> > >Someone suggested that for Log, it would be appropriate to make it an > >abstract class rather than an interface, so we can make these kinds of > >changes easier in the future. I think the risks for this are low, and > >probably better [less problems for the majority of users] than just adding > >new methods to the existing interface. Other thoughts on this direction? > > > > > I think the risk of annoying quite a number of users by changing Log > from an interface to an abstract class is actually quite high. For sure, > one of the default logging implementations provided by JCL would > probably suffice for the majority. However, there are groups who will > have chosen, for whatever reason, to provide their own logging > implementations. I've certainly worked on a couple of projects where > this has been the case. One of them could probably cope with the change > relatively easiliy, but such a change could be a real pain for the > other. Whilst the proportion of JCL users in this situation is probably > quite small, in terms of actual numbers, such a change could cause quite > a lot of grief. IF we went down this road [no such proposal has yet been made], you would be required to make SOME code change. a. Change the 'implements' to an 'extends', pick up default impls for the new methods. b. Supply new methods all your existing code that implements Log. You advocate that (a) is a bigger hit to you. I would have thought (b) would be more difficult, UNLESS your current Log implementations extend some other class. I would have thought Log classes extending other [non Log] classes would be very unlikely. ******************************************* Richard A. Sitze IBM WebSphere WebServices Development --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
