> Class PrimaryObjectSupplier provides no functionality, and the name
> is clumsy. I cannot see why there needs to be an abstract class instead
of
> an interface.
If clients are supposed to implement a framework interface, it is almost
always better to let them extend an abstract class instead, because
otherwise you'll have a really hard time evolving the API over time. It is
impossible to add methods to an interface that clients are supposed to
implement. In some cases, we have both (interface and abstract class) and
corresponding JavaDoc that tells clients to extend the class rather than
implementing the interface. Some of these cases can be simplified by
removing the interface - so we might get rid of the interface
IObjectSupplier (but don't take my word for it, I haven't looked at the
code). I don't think we should get rid of the class.
Boris
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
