🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Arnson wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:38:08 -0500, Geoffrey L. Goetz wrote:
> 
> >I don't understand your comment.  Yes, there are interfaces defined for
> >models, but that is not all that models are.
> 
> That's what I was referring to. Yes, there are default implementations
> of the models, but that's all they are. The models themselves are just
> interfaces.
> 
> sig://boB/TeamB
Just an aside - if I remember correctly, one of the requirements to
being a java bean was that the class implement a parameterless
constructor.  You referenced DefaultTreeModel - it doesn't have one...

Didn't check if that was true of all the models, but I figured it may
explain at least one...

As for whether Javasoft or Inprise should do the expansions, I haven't
been too impressed with what Inprise has put out so far.  I've found so
many problems with their designer, it's almost not worth using.  I just
now found the solution to being able to see frames that sub-class
abstract frames - which was all of them in my application - and that
requires me to create a whole new class just to fake it out.  I don't
know if the other IDEs are as bad (I understand J++ is worse), but I
have much more faith in the javasoft people putting out bug-free
software than I do with Inprise.  

Ross Dukeshier