> My major concern is that if we are going to warn people not > to implement the Action interface, > then what really is the point of providing it in the first > place? As I said above, I just cannot > think of any situation where a class would want to be an > Action *and* extend some other class.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough - I didn't say that the Action interface should not be implemented by anything except the default implementation (what indeed would be the point of that?). The point is, the majority of Actions that people create would extend the default implementation, and would be (mostly) immune to API evolution. People who decide to implement Action directly are free to do so - and they accept that if they do so then they will need to evolve with the API. As Oliver said, if you use an interface then you have some extra options for how you add functionality, such as adding new interfaces that extend Action. Colin Sharples IBM Advisory IT Specialist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
