This got long-ish as I'm partially thinking out loud about this
work-in-progress. Sorry. The whole thing got blown out of proportion
late last week and I shouldn't be doing this with Struts at all, I
think. More of a Dave's Java Playground project, this.
Adam Hardy wrote:
if you have a whole
You missed the point, Adam. No one is so daft as to be saying that
having an interface makes the implementations of that interface less
than specific implementations. The point is that you can switch them
out.
On 8/11/05, Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Newton on 10/08/05 16:25, wro
Dave Newton on 10/08/05 16:25, wrote:
(4) Dependency Injection/Configurability.
Classes that implement interfaces can be instantiated at runtime
allowing for config-file-level application modification. This can
translate into HUGE wins over the life of an application.
As a recent thread on
"Program to an interface, not an implementation."
This concept is different from deciding whether to use Java Interfaces
or abstract classes. The term interface in this context actually means
"type". This is basically the same thing as the Liskov's Substitution
Principle. LSP is a well defined pr
On 8/10/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Carl Smith wrote:
> > In Java/J2EE community, it seems that a lot of experienced developers tend
> > to use a lot of interfaces, however, a lot of junior developers ignore
> > using interface. I am not sure why interfaces seem to be favorite
On 8/10/05, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Laurie Harper wrote:
>
> > As a more general example, consider if you wrote all your code to use
> > ArrayList and later found, after profiling, that you needed to switch
> > to LinkedList for performance reasons. You'd have to update all your
Laurie Harper wrote:
As a more general example, consider if you wrote all your code to use
ArrayList and later found, after profiling, that you needed to switch
to LinkedList for performance reasons. You'd have to update all your
code -- including all the clients of all the methods that accep
Carl Smith wrote:
In Java/J2EE community, it seems that a lot of experienced developers tend to
use a lot of interfaces, however, a lot of junior developers ignore using
interface. I am not sure why interfaces seem to be favorite to some experienced
developers. Can some one explain this?Can yo
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
I think it usually comes down to three reasons...
I'd add a fourth, although really it's just a result of the reasons you
mention. But I think it's important enough to warrant attention :)
(4) Dependency Injection/Configurability.
Classes that implement interfaces
I think it usually comes down to three reasons...
(1) A class can only extend a single class, whereas it can implement
multiple interfaces (Interfaces are Java's version of multiple inheritance
in C). So, as soon as you get to the point where extending a single class
just isn't sufficient, it's n
At the end of the day, some would say there's really no functional
difference between the two.
But as for a preference for interfaces, well, partly it's due to the
limitation of single inheritance in Java. Using interfaces provides the
functionality of acting as a derivative of multiple base clas
"Program to an interface, not an implementation."
#1 principle from GoF. Here's a recent interview with Erich Gamma:
http://www.artima.com/lejava/articles/designprinciples.html
-Dennis
Carl Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
08/10/2005 10:47 AM
Please respond to
"Struts Users Mailing List"
To
S
12 matches
Mail list logo
