'abstract class' versus 'normal class' for a reusable library
Posted
by Greg
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by Greg
Published on 2010-05-11T02:18:08Z
Indexed on
2010/05/11
2:24 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 416
I'm developing a reusable library and have been creating abstract classes, so the client can then extend from these.
QUESTION: Is there any reason in fact I should use an abstract class here as opposed to just a normal class?
Note - Have already decided I do not want to use interfaces as I want to include actual default methods in my library so the client using it doesn't have to write the code.
© Stack Overflow or respective owner