Carlos Sanchez wrote:
anyone?
On 7/20/06, Carlos Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just wondering what people think about protected empty constructor
so I can extend that classes instead of write wrappers.
Hi Carlos
I am not a big fan of this idea. It's still compromising the
anyone?
On 7/20/06, Carlos Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just wondering what people think about protected empty constructor
so I can extend that classes instead of write wrappers.
On 7/20/06, Carlos Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have removed the default constructors added.
I have removed the default constructors added.
On 7/17/06, Ben Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Taylor wrote:
I agree that reusability is important but I'm not convinced that these
changes are justified on this basis, or that is just about balancing
reusability and ease of use. The use
I think your reasoning is sound...!
Scott
Luke Taylor wrote:
I agree that reusability is important but I'm not convinced that these
changes are justified on this basis, or that is just about balancing
reusability and ease of use. The use of constructor arguments is about
guaranteeing that
I agree that reusability is important but I'm not convinced that these
changes are justified on this basis, or that is just about balancing
reusability and ease of use. The use of constructor arguments is about
guaranteeing that objects can only be created with a specific state (the
dependencies
Luke Taylor wrote:
I agree that reusability is important but I'm not convinced that these
changes are justified on this basis, or that is just about balancing
reusability and ease of use. The use of constructor arguments is about
guaranteeing that objects can only be created with a specific
Opening this up to the list for discussion
no problem
I don't think it's just a plexus problem, in general it allows
extensibility and reuse. For instance you may want to subclass it with
a different behaviour and the constructor arguments approach is
limiting. At the end it's a matter of
