At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creation had not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creation had not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

The upside of this case is that each developer using [[NetBeans]] [[API]] can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

{{#ev:youtube|J1E_-lVujMg}}

{{#ev:youtube|J1E_-lVujMg}}

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more.

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more.

At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creation has not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creation had not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more.

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more.

At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creation have not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creation has not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more.

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more.

At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creationg have not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creation have not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

Everyone who knows [[wikipedia:Chuck Norris|Chuck Norris]] knows that he can do magical things. During our [[Linz]] 2010 [[NetBeans]] Certified Training [[Toni Epple]] came up with new, yet unknown, Chuck's capability. ''Chuck can instantiate abstract classes!''

Everyone who knows [[wikipedia:Chuck Norris|Chuck Norris]] knows that he can do magical things. During our [[Linz]] 2010 [[NetBeans]] Certified Training [[Toni Epple]] came up with new, yet unknown, Chuck's capability. ''Chuck can instantiate abstract classes!''

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more. At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] was not older than [[Swing]]. Now it is too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learn how to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more.

 

At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage in [[Swing]]. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] creationg have not preceeded [[Swing]] by few months. Then it was too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learned to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

Everyone who knows [[wikipedia:Chuck Norris|Chuck Norris]] knows that he can do magical things. During our [[Linz]] 2010 [[NetBeans]] Certified Training [[Toni Epple]] came up with new, yet unknown, Chuck's capability. ''Chuck can instantiate abstract classes!''

Everyone who knows [[wikipedia:Chuck Norris|Chuck Norris]] knows that he can do magical things. During our [[Linz]] 2010 [[NetBeans]] Certified Training [[Toni Epple]] came up with new, yet unknown, Chuck's capability. ''Chuck can instantiate abstract classes!''

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more. At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] was not older than [[Swing]]. Now it is too late to change the name (as we would break [[backword compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learn how to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

I was just talking about one [[NetBeans]] [[API]] - [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes] and I had to explain why certain [[NetBeans]] classes are improperly named. Like [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]. In spite of its name it is class that can be instantiated (althrough it is usually subclassed in order to be useful). Well, yeah, it does not have [[Good Name]]. A name like '''DefaultNode''' would suite that class more. At least this is the convention used by [[Swing]]. There is an interface and then there is a ''default'' implementation that simplifies the interface usage. We could have followed this naming practise, if the [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/ Nodes API] was not older than [[Swing]]. Now it is too late to change the name (as we would break [[backward compatibility]]) and not gained much. Rather we learn how to live with [http://bits.netbeans.org/6.9.1/javadoc/org-openide-nodes/org/openide/nodes/AbstractNode.html AbstractNode]'s name.

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

Everyone who knows [[wikipedia:Chuck Norris|Chuck Norris]] knows that he can do magical things. During our [[Linz]] 2010 [[NetBeans]] Certified Training [[Toni Epple]] came up with new, yet unknown, Chuck's capability. ''Chuck can instantiate abstract classes!''

Everyone who knows [[wikipedia:Chuck Norris|Chuck Norris]] knows that he can do magical things. During our [[Linz]] 2010 [[NetBeans]] Certified Training [[Toni Epple]] came up with new, yet unknown, Chuck's capability. ''Chuck can instantiate abstract classes!''

 

The upside of this is that each [[NetBeans]] [[API]] use can feel like [[Chuck Norris]] for a moment! Everyone can ''instantiate abstract node!''. Enjoy this magnificent power and please don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

Btw. don't misplace [[Chuck Norris]] and [[wikipedia:Bruce Lee|Bruce Lee]]:

{{#ev:youtube|J1E_-lVujMg}}

{{#ev:youtube|J1E_-lVujMg}}