creating an Adapter for my interface??

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

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.

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

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).]

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

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).]

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