Skip to main content

Are painter.effects.* part of the review?

3 replies [Last post]
rah003
Offline
Joined: 2004-05-26
Points: 0

I guess not, but just in case: is there a reason why AbstractAreaEffect is actually not abstract, or why it is called *Abstract* anyway?

Cheers,
Jan

Reply viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Joshua Marinacci

It's a base class for the shadows and glows. The only difference
between the various shadows and glows is the color used for the
effect and a few property values. Thus the AbstractAreaEffect can do
everything it needs to through different configuration, not through
implementing an abstract method. It is intended to be a base class
for these other effects, however. Perhaps BaseAreaEffect or
DefaultAreaEffect would be better.

- Josh

On Mar 26, 2007, at 7:41 AM, jdnc-interest@javadesktop.org wrote:

> I guess not, but just in case: is there a reason why [i]
> AbstractAreaEffect[/i] is actually not abstract, or why it is
> called *Abstract* anyway?
>
> Cheers,
> Jan
> [Message sent by forum member 'rah003' (rah003)]
>
> http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=209866
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: jdnc-unsubscribe@jdnc.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: jdnc-help@jdnc.dev.java.net

- Blasting forth in three part harmony!

[att1.html]

evickroy
Offline
Joined: 2004-07-23
Points: 0

DefaultAreaEffect seems more in line with what the core classes use.

Erik

rbair
Offline
Joined: 2003-07-08
Points: 0

Looks like it should either be abstract, or the name should be changed :-). I haven't dug into that area yet, so I haven't yet formed an opinion myself.