From: Wolfgang K. <wol...@xm...> - 2009-10-15 12:52:09
|
I agree with you - the implementation should be consistent throughout the various classes. Could you please provide a link to the files/classes where you saw the mixture of interfaces and abstract classes? So we have the chance to review that and make a decision how the implementation actually should look like (and that should also result in the suggestion you asked for ;-) ). After a decision has been made it might be necessary to refactor the mixture you mentioned a bit. -- Wolfgang Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: > Hello > > I am trying to implement the UINavigationBar item. > So I need to provide a delegate. > > I've seen that in your code for protocols you've a mixture of java > interfaces and abstract methods/classes. > Why is that? What do you suggest? > > My opinion is to stay with interfaces, since with an interface you > don't nail down the type of object a delegate will be (and that's the > idea of the delegate, right?) > > I'd also suggest that the code should be consistent and probably > change that overall in the project (although I know it's not a high > priority) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > |