Ulf,
The discussions you refer to have been happening over a number of years.
We are way past that point now.
The key point is that default methods do not introduce
multiple-inheritance of state, which is where the MI problems lie, and
why we would not want to add MI and use abstract classes.
Regards,
David
On 10/04/2013 6:47 PM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Hi all,
when I see all the extensions on interfaces via the new default
construct, I still have the feeling, such entities should be seen and
named as "normal" abstract classes. This would additionally allow
protected and private members, which otherwise can be a cumbersome
restriction.
To be compatible to legacy code, IMO it would be enough to extend the
usage of keyword "implements" for abstract classes. I'm aware, that
there should be some restrictions on such abstract classes to be
manageable as interfaces, but not as strict as for current interface
default method approach.
In fact, the interface default methods is the introduction of
multi-inheritance in Java throug the backdoor, so why not give it a
prominent full featured place and handle and name it as such?
Is there anybody willing to discuss the reasonable for the "lousy"
makeshift as I see the default method construct:
- verbose ugly syntax
- cumbersome restrictions
- unnecessary complicated priority rules:
- - some of the priority collisions could be handled by simply
distinguishing between e.g. "implements Map" and "extends Map"
From the call site view, I'm not aware, if it would make any
difference, having e.g. j.u.Map as interface or abstract class:
Map myMap = new HashMap();
myMap.doSomething();
Regards,
-Ulf
