Timeline for How to avoid general names for abstract classes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2012 at 0:38 | comment | added | Blrfl | It's still the same thing. Even if your method is void doWhatYouDoWith(Email e), you could still call the class an EmailDisposer, which is specific enough to say what it does but general enough that how is up to the implementation. Although I think @KrisVanBael nailed it: if you've resorted to something that ambiguous, there may be too much under one roof. | |
| Sep 5, 2012 at 22:48 | comment | added | djechlin | What about when the end function is in some sense terminal, so the abstract class is saying "and this here, do whatever you want with it?" e.g., the method has no access to state, void return type, no-throw. | |
| Sep 5, 2012 at 22:46 | history | answered | Blrfl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |