Talk:Empty method over-rides
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I was just looking for people's opinions of this. Obviously empty methods are in general an indication of bad design, but they are tempting. What can be done instead? Are there situations where empty methods are okay? Would it be appropriate if the empty method threw an exception? This would still probably cause us to discard polymorphism, because we would have to check the instance type. What solutions are there that would allow us to maintain polymorphism? What principles or maxims are relevant here? --[[User:Aidan Bebbington|Aidan Bebbington]] 04:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | I was just looking for people's opinions of this. Obviously empty methods are in general an indication of bad design, but they are tempting. What can be done instead? Are there situations where empty methods are okay? Would it be appropriate if the empty method threw an exception? This would still probably cause us to discard polymorphism, because we would have to check the instance type. What solutions are there that would allow us to maintain polymorphism? What principles or maxims are relevant here? --[[User:Aidan Bebbington|Aidan Bebbington]] 04:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | One discussion [http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/2962136/Empty-abstract-method-override-good-or-bad-design.aspx] resulted in a solution where the empty method throws an exception. This seems like complete rubbish to me because then clients of that class must use the instanceof operator or similar, and so polymorphism is lost. --[[User:Aidan|Aidan]] 06:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:22, 1 August 2009
I was just looking for people's opinions of this. Obviously empty methods are in general an indication of bad design, but they are tempting. What can be done instead? Are there situations where empty methods are okay? Would it be appropriate if the empty method threw an exception? This would still probably cause us to discard polymorphism, because we would have to check the instance type. What solutions are there that would allow us to maintain polymorphism? What principles or maxims are relevant here? --Aidan Bebbington 04:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
One discussion [1] resulted in a solution where the empty method throws an exception. This seems like complete rubbish to me because then clients of that class must use the instanceof operator or similar, and so polymorphism is lost. --Aidan 06:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
