Re: Forcing sub-classes to implement Constructor

Brian Maso wrote:
> No.
>
> Constructors are more like static methods than regular methods: they
> can't be declared abstract and thus force subclasses to have them. You
> can add tools to your build to recognize certain annotations that
> trigger verifier rules. For example, you could define an annotation
> such as:

Hmm. Brian appears to be correct after a quick test.

Whats weird is that I *know* I've seen situations where the definition
of a super class contrutctir forced the definition of sub class one...

JK
>
> @SubclassConstructorRequiredPattern(presense=REQUIRED,
> constructor=PUBLIC_DEFAULT)
>
> which would be applied to the base class. Some part of your build then
> would scan code either jsut before or just after compilation to see if
> it breaks all the rules defined by such annotations.
>
> Sounds like an awful lot of work, though. What's your use-case? Why do
> you ned subclasses to supply a public default constructor?
>
> Brian Maso
>
> At 07:13 AM 8/9/2007, you wrote:
>> Is there a way to force subclasses of a class to implement a certain
>> (read
>> empty) constructor.
>>
>> mvh roger j
>>
>> ===================================
>> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com
>>
>> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
>> http://discuss.develop.com
>
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com
>
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://discuss.develop.com

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com