On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Goers wrote:
FWIW, I agree. I must have missed the earlier discussion as well. I
definitely prefer having an interface that can be used whenever a
specific implementation is not required.
The original
Hi!
Look through the archives, the discussion with pros and cons went on
promoting commons-proxy.
Yes they did! I remember it well and I hated using a class rather
than an interface. However, I can see the merit in the decision when
it comes to maintenance and backward compatibility.
I emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] to see if there was interest in including some of my
classes in their project. See the link below:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/poi-dev/200810.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick mentioned that commons might be a better home for this. I'm fine
with continuing to
Hi,
I have not been in the conversations before, but I am also a proponent
of using interfaces. One way to enable extensions for those interfaces
would be to use the capability pattern (similar to what is described
here: http://java.dzone.com/news/the-capability-pattern-future- ).
There could be
