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 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.
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. As a "purist", it just hurt! ;) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
