> > I thought that would probably be the case. What about > > being broken on Macs (which use '\r') though? > > Hmm... Guess we need to revisit it then sometime. I > don't think we will be able to before te beta at least.
No problem - I'm sure I'll find more urgent problems :) > > I personally don't like the encapsulation of this: > > they're acting as factories, really - there's no reason > > why the factory class should be the same one as the > > reader, and by forcing them to be the same we end up > > with this dummy constructor. > > Well, the 'factory' uses the very same setters > and adders that the actual class is using - so > why would you need two very similar classes? > Moreover, the factory in this case would produce just > one class - not more than one - as a factory object > would typically be used... But anyway, if you feel > refactoring is needed here, +1. Valid points, but the way it currently works still has a "smell" to it, in Martin Fowler's terms. I'll give it some consideration. Maybe Ant2 will have fixed all this up in a way that means we don't even need to worry about it :) > > Agreed. It should be documented though - I'll try to work > > something out, unless you want to? > > Sorry, Jon. I am a bit tied up currently. But, doc changes > may be made after the beta too - so if you don't beat me to it, > I will try to document it better in the next couple of weeks. No problem - I'll fix up the JavaDoc tomorrow to give at least a brief summary of why it's there, and if it needs documenting beyond JavaDoc we can do that post-beta. Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
