Re: [macker-user] Never implement interface but only abstract class

[Etienne S. <et...@st...>]

Hi Paul

Thanks. I'll try it out and let you know!

--Etienne



Paul Cantrell wrote:
> Hello Etienne!
> 
> It's a touch convoluted, but I think something like this rule would do 
> the trick:
> 
>                 <deny>
>                     <from filter="subtype-of" class="IFoo" />
>                     <to class="IFoo" />
>         <allow>
>                         <from filter="subtype-of" class="AbstractFoo" />
>         </allow>
>                 </deny>
> 
> Untested (sorry); give it a whirl and let me know how it works.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Feb 28, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Etienne Studer wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>>
>> I just started using Macker. It's great - straight-forward to use and 
>> very helpful!
>>
>> Can I described the following rule with Macker (if so, how?):
>>
>> "No class may implement interface IFoo directly. Classes must only 
>> extend the abstract class AbstractFoo which implements IFoo already. 
>> The one exception is the class AbstractFoo itself."
>>
>> That would be great. Any help is appreciated!
>>
>> --Etienne
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
>> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
>> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
>> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
>> _______________________________________________
>> Macker-user mailing list
>> Mac...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/macker-user
>>
>> Macker home page: http://innig.net/macker/
>>
>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 
> "Prediction is hard, especially of the future."  -- Niels Bohr
> 
> 
>