Return to Answer

You wrote

Sprites contain pixel data

which is a clear sign of a "has a" relationship, not an "is a". So bite the bullet and make Sprite -> Resource a composition.

Why not composition? Because I'd still have to implement methods in Sprite (and similar classes) that essentially call the methods of Resource

yes, you will - but only trivial delegation methods. You won't have to repeat any functional code. That's actually acceptable. and the standard way composition/delegation works. Here you find a detailed example how to replace inheritance by delegation. This approach is so common, that there is even an Eclipse refactoring exactly for this purpose,

You wrote

Sprites contain pixel data

which is a clear sign of a "has a" relationship, not an "is a". So bite the bullet and make Sprite -> Resource a composition.

Why not composition? Because I'd still have to implement methods in Sprite (and similar classes) that essentially call the methods of Resource

yes, you will - but only trivial delegation methods. You won't have to repeat any functional code. That's actually acceptable. and the standard way composition/delegation works. Here you find a detailed example how to replace inheritance by delegation. This approach is so common, there is even an Eclipse refactoring exactly for this purpose,

You wrote

Sprites contain pixel data

which is a clear sign of a "has a" relationship, not an "is a". So bite the bullet and make Sprite -> Resource a composition.

Why not composition? Because I'd still have to implement methods in Sprite (and similar classes) that essentially call the methods of Resource

yes, you will - but only trivial delegation methods. You won't have to repeat any functional code. That's actually acceptable. and the standard way composition works. Here you find a detailed example how to replace inheritance by delegation. This approach is so comman, that there is even an Eclipse refactoring exactly for this purpose,

You wrote

Sprites contain pixel data

which is a clear sign of a "has a" relationship, not an "is a". So bite the bullet and make Sprite -> Resource a composition.

Why not composition? Because I'd still have to implement methods in Sprite (and similar classes) that essentially call the methods of Resource

yes, you will - but only trivial delegation methods. You won't have to repeat any functional code. That's actually acceptable. and the standard way composition/delegation works. Here you find a detailed example how to replace inheritance by delegation. This approach is so common, that there is even an Eclipse refactoring exactly for this purpose,

Sprites contain pixel data

which is a clear sign of a "has a" relationship, not an "is a". So bite the bullet and make Sprite -> Resource a composition.

Why not composition? Because I'd still have to implement methods in Sprite (and similar classes) that essentially call the methods of Resource

yes, you will - but only trivial delegation methods. You won't have to repeat any functional code. That's actually acceptable. and the standard way composition works. Here you find a detailed example how to replace inheritance by delegation.

You wrote

Sprites contain pixel data

which is a clear sign of a "has a" relationship, not an "is a". So bite the bullet and make Sprite -> Resource a composition.

Why not composition? Because I'd still have to implement methods in Sprite (and similar classes) that essentially call the methods of Resource

yes, you will - but only trivial delegation methods. You won't have to repeat any functional code. That's actually acceptable. and the standard way composition works. Here you find a detailed example how to replace inheritance by delegation. This approach is so comman, that there is even an Eclipse refactoring exactly for this purpose,