Re: [ljc] Re: Defender Methods

From: Russel W.
Sent on: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:56 AM
On Wed,[masked] at 02:20 -0400, Alex Anderson wrote:
> It's a shame there's not a third option in the survey - if a method
> body is declared in an interface, then surely it could be understood
> implicitly to be a default implementation?

Indeed. But I wanted a fourth option: Don't do either, just use an
abstract class.

-- 
Russel.
====================­====================­====================­=================
Dr Russel Winder      t: [masked]   voip: sip:[address removed]
41 Buckmaster Road    m: [masked]   xmpp: [address removed]
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

This email message originally included an attachment.

Our Sponsors

  • Our Blog

    Read the latest news from the LJC

  • RecWorks Ltd

    Fixing Tech Recruitment using the Power of Community

  • jClarity

    Java/JVM Performance Analysis Tools & mentoring for Java related matters

  • LJC Aggrity

    Our LJC Aggrity site contains blog posts from our members

  • LJC Book Club

    Our Book club with book reviews from our members

  • Devoxx UK

    Java Community Conference, in collaboration with the LJC 12/13 Jun 14

  • SkillsMatter

    "Host, help organise, promote, film many of our meetings."

  • Packt Publishing

    A publishing company specializing on specific technologies and solutions

  • Java.Net

    We are an official Java User Group recognised by Oracle's JUG program

  • JRebel

    Free 3 month J-Rebel license.

  • O'Reilly

    40% discount on printed books and 50% on e-books.

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy