Timeline for Is it good design to have one constructor that supplies a "default" concrete class to another that takes an abstraction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 31, 2020 at 6:44 | history | edited | casablanca | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 296 characters in body
|
| Jan 31, 2020 at 6:32 | comment | added | casablanca | @DavideVisentin: Convention over configuration is probably a good way to phrase it. Many libraries often provide multiple constructors in this fashion: one that picks good defaults and another that allows customization. | |
| Jan 31, 2020 at 6:26 | comment | added | casablanca | @GregBurghardt: See my update to the answer. | |
| Jan 31, 2020 at 6:26 | history | edited | casablanca | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 595 characters in body
|
| Jan 30, 2020 at 16:30 | comment | added | Greg Burghardt | The concrete type could be an issue, since that concrete type is a dependency of the class, and therefore a dependency of all clients that use this class. | |
| Jan 30, 2020 at 8:48 | comment | added | Davide Visentin | "Not sure if there is a name for this pattern" Convention over configuration? | |
| Jan 30, 2020 at 8:33 | history | answered | casablanca | CC BY-SA 4.0 |