Talk:BaseBean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Relation to Mixin?[edit]

What is the relation to or the distinction from the Mixin pattern? 141.89.44.45 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with SuperClass[edit]

This description is a java specific version of the more general concept of a Base Class, Base class currently redirects to Superclass (computer science), and I believe that the concept of a base class should be added to that article, and the java specialisation as a sub note. --FredThwaites 21:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. As I understand it is not Java specialisation of Base Class. It is a case when Base Class is used in wrong way. So it is some kind of anti-pattern. Utility class should be used (call method from separate class with utility methods) rather than calling method from base class. CoperNick 10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily a specialisation. It is merely an example. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree As User:CoperNick says, it is an anti-pattern. But the article could perhaps do with a discussion of how applicable the problem is in other OO languages. PJTraill (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Citation needed. Does anyone else besides yourselves call it an anti-pattern? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Not notable enough. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree Per User:CoperNick. A pattern (and by extension, an anti-pattern) is not a design component, it's a design solution. Agree that more citation is needed (and I think that Scott Meyers' books have some good thoughts on is-a vs. has-a that could pertain), but that's a different issue -- Sangrolu (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Contentions?[edit]

The NPOV tag refers to a debate here re:neutrality, but there is no mention of what someone considers NPOV. If nobody has any contentions, I will probably remove it. -Sangrolu (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)