Talk:Cooperating with Other APIs - Revision history

JaroslavTulach: /* Possible wording mistake at p173 */

JaroslavTulach — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:12:08 GMT

Possible wording mistake at p173

←Older revision		Revision as of 03:12, 12 September 2009
Line 127:		Line 127:

	--[[User:Silentfish\|Silentfish]] 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:Silentfish\|Silentfish]] 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	You are right, thanks. I've added your note to [[Errata_10]].
		+
		+	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 03:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Silentfish — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:29:09 GMT

Possible wording mistake at p173

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:29, 10 September 2009
Line 125:		Line 125:

	unless you have a particular reason.		unless you have a particular reason.
		+
		+	--[[User:Silentfish\|Silentfish]] 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Silentfish — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:28:43 GMT

Possible wording mistake at p173: new section

←Older revision		Revision as of 09:28, 10 September 2009
Line 115:		Line 115:

	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Possible wording mistake at p173 ==
		+
		+	"Because they are '''protected''', calling them from a subclass has no meaning, as they don’t provide any implementation in the defining class."
		+
		+	I believe it should be
		+
		+	"Because they are '''abstract''', calling them from a subclass has no meaning, as they don’t provide any implementation in the defining class."
		+
		+	unless you have a particular reason.

JaroslavTulach — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:26:45 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:26, 4 April 2009
Line 108:		Line 108:

	Thanks ''swv'' for your questions. I'll try to provide [[Blogs\|blog answer]] soon, but here are short comments:		Thanks ''swv'' for your questions. I'll try to provide [[Blogs\|blog answer]] soon, but here are short comments:
-	* if the class B is not part of [[API]], then it does not matter how poorly (from [[evolution]] point of view it is designed)	+	* if the class B is not part of [[API]], then it does not matter how poorly (from [[evolution]] point of view) it is designed
	* if the class B is in an [[API]] (probably it should not, as deep, including two, object hierarchies do not belong in [[API]]), it can still make all the overriden methods ''protected final''. Potentially introduce some new ''protected abstract'' - e.g. positioning class C into similar situation as B was when it was created.		* if the class B is in an [[API]] (probably it should not, as deep, including two, object hierarchies do not belong in [[API]]), it can still make all the overriden methods ''protected final''. Potentially introduce some new ''protected abstract'' - e.g. positioning class C into similar situation as B was when it was created.
	* Better than [[EliminateFuzzyModifiers]] is to use [[DelegationAndComposition]] and these problems shall be gone then.		* Better than [[EliminateFuzzyModifiers]] is to use [[DelegationAndComposition]] and these problems shall be gone then.

JaroslavTulach — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:25:40 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:25, 4 April 2009
Line 107:		Line 107:
	--[[User:swv\|swv]], April 3, 2009		--[[User:swv\|swv]], April 3, 2009

-	Thanks ''swv'' for your questions. I'll try to [[Blogs\|blog answer]] soon, but here are short comments:	+	Thanks ''swv'' for your questions. I'll try to provide [[Blogs\|blog answer]] soon, but here are short comments:
	* if the class B is not part of [[API]], then it does not matter how poorly (from [[evolution]] point of view it is designed)		* if the class B is not part of [[API]], then it does not matter how poorly (from [[evolution]] point of view it is designed)
	* if the class B is in an [[API]] (probably it should not, as deep, including two, object hierarchies do not belong in [[API]]), it can still make all the overriden methods ''protected final''. Potentially introduce some new ''protected abstract'' - e.g. positioning class C into similar situation as B was when it was created.		* if the class B is in an [[API]] (probably it should not, as deep, including two, object hierarchies do not belong in [[API]]), it can still make all the overriden methods ''protected final''. Potentially introduce some new ''protected abstract'' - e.g. positioning class C into similar situation as B was when it was created.

JaroslavTulach — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:25:11 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:25, 4 April 2009
Line 106:		Line 106:

	--[[User:swv\|swv]], April 3, 2009		--[[User:swv\|swv]], April 3, 2009
		+
		+	Thanks ''swv'' for your questions. I'll try to [[Blogs\|blog answer]] soon, but here are short comments:
		+	* if the class B is not part of [[API]], then it does not matter how poorly (from [[evolution]] point of view it is designed)
		+	* if the class B is in an [[API]] (probably it should not, as deep, including two, object hierarchies do not belong in [[API]]), it can still make all the overriden methods ''protected final''. Potentially introduce some new ''protected abstract'' - e.g. positioning class C into similar situation as B was when it was created.
		+	* Better than [[EliminateFuzzyModifiers]] is to use [[DelegationAndComposition]] and these problems shall be gone then.
		+
		+	Thanks and you are right about the page numbers. The previous comments are about draft of [[TheAPIBook]], while you have final version.
		+
		+	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

JaroslavTulach — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:58:39 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 4 April 2009
Line 105:		Line 105:
	So this is the table on page 174 of the Apress book. Reading some of these posts it appears that the page numbers they refer to and the page numbers I have in my book are different.		So this is the table on page 174 of the Apress book. Reading some of these posts it appears that the page numbers they refer to and the page numbers I have in my book are different.

-	--[[User:swv\|swv]]	+	--[[User:swv\|swv]], April 3, 2009

JaroslavTulach — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:58:19 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 4 April 2009
Line 104:		Line 104:

	So this is the table on page 174 of the Apress book. Reading some of these posts it appears that the page numbers they refer to and the page numbers I have in my book are different.		So this is the table on page 174 of the Apress book. Reading some of these posts it appears that the page numbers they refer to and the page numbers I have in my book are different.
-	--[[User:swv[swv]]	+
		+	--[[User:swv\|swv]]

68.57.243.125 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:42:40 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 3 April 2009
Line 104:		Line 104:

	So this is the table on page 174 of the Apress book. Reading some of these posts it appears that the page numbers they refer to and the page numbers I have in my book are different.		So this is the table on page 174 of the Apress book. Reading some of these posts it appears that the page numbers they refer to and the page numbers I have in my book are different.
		+	--[[User:swv[swv]]

68.57.243.125 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:54:17 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 22:54, 3 April 2009
Line 102:		Line 102:

	What am I misunderstanding?		What am I misunderstanding?
		+
		+	So this is the table on page 174 of the Apress book. Reading some of these posts it appears that the page numbers they refer to and the page numbers I have in my book are different.