Re: [xmlvm-users] Interface vs abstract classes

[Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...>]

On 13 Σεπ 2010, at 10:06 π.μ., hassan kalaldeh wrote:

> Actually Interfaces are used to declare your first high level types in the project while building skeleton, later you might need to (most of the time, you should) use abstract classes since you will end up with common methods\blocks ... you have a better chance to apply good technical designs such as using template design pattern.
> 
> 
> for example ;
> 
> IDataStore   (interface)
> ---- AbstractDataStore   (abstract)
> -------- XmlDataStore      (concrete)
> -------- TextFileDataStore (concrete)
> -------- DBDataSource    (concrete)   
> 
> The other use of interfaces is to have tagged interfaces, but I guess you do not use it that much.
> 
> your comments are appreciated :) ...
> 
> Hassan
> 


The reason I started this thread is to make XMLVM as "light" as possible.
Especially when event or delegate classes are needed (when a lot of inner classes are defined by  definition).

Having both, an interface and an abstract/concrete class (like what it is now) I think will solve this problem, even if the author of XMLVM support library will have to double his work.