creating an Adapter for my interface??

[Lisa Foster]

I have the following problem here is my interface:

package suncertify.db;
import java.io.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.rmi.*;
public interface DataClient extends Remote
{
public FieldInfo [] getFieldInfo()throws RemoteException;
public DataInfo getRecord(int recNum)throws DatabaseException, RemoteException;
public DataInfo find(String toMatch)throws DatabaseException, RemoteException;
public void add(String [] newData)throws DatabaseException, RemoteException;
public void modify(DataInfo newData)throws DatabaseException, RemoteException;
public void delete(DataInfo toDelete)throws DatabaseException, RemoteException;
public void close() throws RemoteException;
public void lock(int record)throws IOException, RemoteException;
public void unlock(int record)throws RemoteException;
public DataInfo[] criteriaFind(String criteria) throws DatabaseException, RemoteException;
public String[] getComboValues(int fieldNum) throws DatabaseException, RemoteException;
public int getMatchCount(String matchCount) throws DatabaseException,RemoteException;
}
the problem is when I compile DataClientLocal
without abstract keyword then I get a ton of errors staing class must be declared abstract it does not define all the methods in my interface//
Any Ideas perhaps making an adapter class for my interface??
How to declare an adapter for my class
public abstract class DataClientLocal implements DataClient
{
.
.
.}I need to implement an adapter instaed of DataClient
m Thanks for any help Lisa

[Paul Smiley]

Creating your own adapter class is done by declaring an empty body for all abstract methods declared - and then overriding one (or more) of those methods in your instantiation.

[Lisa Foster]

Paul is this approach look ok for my project??
Thanks Lisa

[luis veron]

hi lisa,
I think we don't need to declare the class as abstact as Paul suggest, we only need to implement those record as empty. For example;

public DataInfo getRecord(int recNum) throws DatabaseException {}

Am I right? You will noticed too that I removed the synchronized modifier (in this case for getRecord) to allow concurrent access to the db.
Does it make sense?
Thanks
[This message has been edited by luis veron (edited March 15, 2001).]

[Paul Smiley]

Just for the record, I didn't sugest it, she asked how to do it...

[Andrew Spruce]

Wouldn't it make sense to declare the class abstract anyway? given that it has no method implementations.
This would stop it from being used directly.

[This message has been edited by Andrew Spruce (edited March 27, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Andrew Spruce (edited March 27, 2001).]

[Lisa Foster]

Yes it would thanks
Lisa I have been giving thoughts to my design