Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
Inheritance, as known in super-class/sub-class relationships may not exist
between packages, but there is a hierarchy of packages, as designated by the dot
notation of package names. As you traverse the package names, the contents of
the package become more and more specialized and tightly focused.
So, for example, you have java.awt.image.renderable, which is a package that is
specifically focussed on classes used for a subset of images. Another example is
java.nio.file.attribute, or java.util.concurrent and it's sub-packages,
java.util.concurrent.atomic and java.util.concurrent.locks.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 09:09 AM EDT |
It can be a bad thing. It can indicate a desire on
his part to find something somewhere to justify
letting Oracle prevail.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
There is no actual inheritance.
Nothing 'gets something' from somewhere else.
It's a symbolic construct for a conceptual function/process of the virtual
machine. It can be syntactically articulated in source code using the
extends/implements keywords.
It is this mixing of technical terms for concepts that has got this mess this
far.
Trying to place a concept in context of another concept is to misunderstand the
nature of what it is that you have started with,
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
Just the opposite. The lack of functional inheritance implies
that the structure is primarily expressive and hence
copyrightable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|