Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Date's First Great Blunder

Re: Date's First Great Blunder

From: Eric Kaun <ekaun_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:03:42 GMT
Message-ID: <2%Qgc.9754$XO5.9569@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>


"Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message news:c5oui3$hs8$1_at_news.netins.net...
> "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:VEyfc.640$_o7.513_at_newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:c5kave$i4r$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > > "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4Lhfc.281$%r4.200_at_newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> <snip>
> > Interfaces are more specification than reuse. Abstract base classes are
> for
> > reuse, but it's very, very easy to get things horribly wrong.
> <snip>
> I know this is a minor point, but have to reply. It is not the interfaces
> themselves that are reusable code, but the use of interfaces for writing
> services and for being able to reuse code with classes that implement an
> interface of subclass thereof that makes me a fan of interfaces. --dawn

I agree that interfaces are a good thing. It's when implementation inheritance creeps in (especially in a language like Java that offers little protection and little guidance) that ugliness can easily ensue, even when you're careful. Received on Mon Apr 19 2004 - 09:03:42 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US