Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Reinhard Poetz wrote: > >> we could provide an abstract parent bean definition >> (http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/beans.html#beans-child-bean-definitions). >> >> > Yes, but this would also mean that all implementations inherit from an > abstract class we provide. This is not a big deal, I guess we can live > with that. > IIRC this is not *required* (thought is convenient in many cases). In an abstract bean definition you can declare only a property, only the class, only a factory method or any mix of the preceding and something more. Obviously if you say that there is a property named "thatStuff", it will search for setThatStuff, but that could be in a common interface and does not require that every subclass extends the same abstract base class.
Simone
