<SNIP> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:54:48 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Ted, and the reasoning he states. Indeed, in this > particular respect, Action *should* be inflexible because making it an > interface would encourage you to use it incorrectly. </SNIP>
How is an interface with the same signature more flexible in any relevant sense here? I don't see that. How could an extension of an Action class be more or less encouraging in how you use it "correctly" or "incorrectly" than an implementation of an Action interface? I don't see what this could mean. <SNIP> > History lesson time. > > Prior to Struts 0.5 (in 2000-2001), ActionForm was indeed an > interface. It became clear that a large majority of the audience for > Struts was misusing it, by making their VO beans "implement > ActionForm" -- violating the principle that ActionForm was, and is, > part of the View tier (not the Model tier. It was changed into a base > class precisely to avoid this. > > As you might imagine, this was a controversial decision then. But I'm > sure glad we did it. </SNIP> I also do not see the point in this. Why cannot you misuse a class to precisely the extent you can misuse an interface? -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
