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
>
|
