Talk:abstract interface

RFV discussion: November–December 2017
OOP term. Defined as "an interface that has a one-to-many relation". My understanding is that all interfaces are inherently abstract because you cannot have any code (concrete methods, properties or whatever) in an interface - at least in any language I have met. Entry creator, Sae (who has a fairly bad track record here, IMO), is known to be a Java user. In Java, "every interface is implicitly abstract. This modifier is obsolete and should not be used in new programs" (JLS section 9). Equinox ◑ 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This belongs in RFD, not RFV. It is easy enough to cite, as a common co-location, but it is totally SOP. Kiwima (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree because "an interface that has a one-to-many relation" isn't anything like what abstract interface should mean (though I can see that my comments above were not quite relevant to that). Equinox ◑ 04:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * abstract interface definition [from: ETSI GS NFV-IFA 002 V2.1.1 (2016-03)(http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-IFA/001_099/002/02.01.01_60/gs_NFV-IFA002v020101p.pdf)]:


 * abstract interface: computer specification and modelling construct. It defines an information model and a way to communicate between two or more entities
 * NOTE: Computing objects and APIs can be developed for a programming language to implement it.
 * Έκτωρ (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)