Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 1
    This is probably the best solution, but not necessarily the best idea :p Commented Oct 7, 2008 at 13:10
  • 1
    wouldn't you still have to edit the abstract class when you add methods to the interafces? Commented Oct 7, 2008 at 13:27
  • 3
    @leppie - "Every time I add a method to one of the interfaces I need to change the class FirstAndSecond as well." This part of the original question isn't addressed by this solution, is it? Commented Oct 7, 2008 at 14:00
  • 2
    You would have to edit the abstract class, but you NOT have to edit any other classes that depend on it. The buck stops there, rather than continuing to cascade to the entire collection of classes. Commented Oct 7, 2008 at 14:57
  • 2
    @JoelCoehoorn: I don't follow this answer... classes can implement multiple interfaces, so why do even need a abstract base class? I am not able to understand how would this solve the MI problem? Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 21:47