'abstract class' versus 'normal class' for a reusable library

Posted by Greg on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by Greg
Published on 2010-05-11T02:18:08Z Indexed on 2010/05/11 2:24 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 388

Filed under:
|
|
|

I'm developing a reusable library and have been creating abstract classes, so the client can then extend from these.

QUESTION: Is there any reason in fact I should use an abstract class here as opposed to just a normal class?

Note - Have already decided I do not want to use interfaces as I want to include actual default methods in my library so the client using it doesn't have to write the code.

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about c#

Related posts about .NET