I don't know since I don't know what your plans are, will just have to trust you.
That being said, the Activity interface is currently really nice and it doesn't tie us down to a single class for inheritance. On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: > Any part of my point is that making sure it remains a trivial class with > only no-ops means you don't need to mock it. Is that a reasonable > assumption? > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Julien <pjul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> making it a class instead of an interface means we can't mock it anymore. >> >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: >> > We're making a few breaking changes in 2.1.1 to the new features >> > introduced >> > in 2.1. (We're not supposed to do that kind of thing, but are hoping to >> > get >> > away with it in this quick follow up release before there is much >> > adoption.) >> > I'd like to add a change to Activity to that list, in order to allow it >> > to >> > evolve in later releases when breakage of any kind won't be an option: >> > I'd >> > like to make Activity an abstract class instead of an interface, >> > basically >> > rename AbstractActivity. >> > Any objections? >> > rjrjr >> > >> > -- >> > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >> >> -- >> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
