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 arguing was, that an interface will always prevent an enhancement because of backward compatibility. This is especially true for the current Configuration code base. Whenever I get a Configuration object passed, I cast it quite immediately to an AbstractConfiguration to set the delimiter and throw mode. If Configuration itself were an abstract class, those methods could have been added long ago without breaking backward compatibility. Look through the archives, the discussion with pros and cons went on promoting commons-proxy. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
