From: Grant I. <gsi...@ap...> - 2008-08-22 21:18:04
|
On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Antoni Myłka wrote: >> > > Actually a CrawlerHandlerBase class, that does nothing, but relieves > the > use from the obbligation to implement clearStarted etc. is a part of > my > patch submitted to the issue number 2052009. I used it to reduce the > amount of code in tests. We could use it. What do you think? It's an OK approach, but still has the problem of what happens to people who don't extend the base, but implement the interface. If we make CrawlerHandler itself the abstract base class, then people have no choice but to extend it and the library maintainers can implement new features on it w/o (as much) fear of breaking existing implementations. |