As you say, the code has no effect at all. It has been there since ages.
Maybe it serves the purpose to "remember" the User of the class that it
implements the Persistent interface. Maybe also, in some weird generator
configuration, it serves a purpose.
I'd recommend to just ignore it.
Thomas
"Manaster, Carl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 10.03.2006 19:15:19:
> [apologies if this is a duplicate post; it didn't seem to reach the list
> the first time --cm]
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to begin to understand Torque. I "get" the BaseX / X model,
> and I appreciate it. I looked at one of my X classes and noticed that
> it is declared to implement Persistent, although it (as yet) has no
> body. So I figured the implementation must be back in the hierarchy a
> ways, perhaps spread over a few ancestors. As it turns out, BaseObject
> not only implements Persistent, but is actually declared to implement it
> as well.
>
> So my X, which is-a BaseX, which is-a BaseObject, is known to the system
> to implement Persistent without any statement in its class definition to
> that effect. So, why is the declaration there?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peace,
> --Carl
>
> ------------------
> Carl Manaster
> ActivX Biosciences
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 858/526-2514
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
