Sure....while writing VisualNetRexx, I knew I needed some sort of 'server'
to store code, run compiles etc.
Rather than making Server a 'normal' class, I defined it as an interface.
Now if I need to write another server, I can inherit from whereever I want,
including, say FTPClient...
It's far more flexible to leave inheritance up to the programmer at the
time.
Swing also uses interfaces a lot. For example, to provide data for a JTree,
you only need to implement TreeModel's interface. Which means *anything*
(an applet, JDBC extension etc) can provide that data. Not some specially
subclassed object.
Is this better??
Andreas Zieritz <
[hidden email]> on 17/08/98 04:24:05 PM
Please respond to
[hidden email]
To:
[hidden email]
cc:
Subject:
[netrexx-course] Re: Lesson 1?
dIon Gillard/Multitask Consulting/AU wrote:
> Definitely....I use interfaces fairly extensively, and am often
explaining
> why.
Some time ago I bought a very good book called 'Object Rexx by Example'.
One of the first things they said was, that Examples are the most
important thing you need when you want to do something.
That's the same with me..
Could all the 'high level' programmers give us lower ones a simple
example of all you're talking about - it makes life much easier for us.
Thanks
____________________________________________________________
List Site:
http://www.findmail.com/list/netrexx-course/
To unsubscribe, send to
[hidden email]
FREE group e-mail lists at
http://www.findmail.com____________________________________________________________
List Site:
http://www.findmail.com/list/netrexx-course/
To unsubscribe, send to
[hidden email]
FREE group e-mail lists at
http://www.findmail.com
Locked
