Hear us Roar
Article:
 |
|
10 Reasons We Need Java 3.0
|
| Subject: |
|
Interface naming collisions |
| Date: |
|
2002-08-06 10:40:32 |
| From: |
|
wmshub
|
Response to: Interface naming collisions
|
|
But there's already a solution! Just use an inner class instead. I almost never implement interfaces in my "main" classes, so instead of:
public class Foo
implements Bar, Baz {
public void close() { /* Is this Bar.close or Baz.close? Oh no! */
}
}
you can write:
public class Foo {
public final Bar bar = new Bar() {
public void close() {
barClose();
}
}
public final Baz baz = new Baz() {
public void close() {
bazClose();
}
}
private void barClose() { ... }
private void bazClose() { ... }
}
Problem solved! Now just use foo.bar when you need the Bar interface and foo.baz when you need the Baz interface.
My only complaint is that it's a very verbose mneumonic. I'd prefer "thin" classes, like:
public thin Bar bar = Bar() { close=barClose };
to say "Bar is an inner bar object, but its close is equal to the bazClose in the outer object". Much easier to read.
|
|
| |
