Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > Some comments about PropertyHelper, I think that instead of declering > members of the class protected we should used private members and set/get > protected accessors. This produces more refactorable code and without > funny side effects.
No problem, it's easy to do that. I expect many small changes like that - but first I would like to get things settled and working well. > can someone explain (again?) why is the issue of inmutable properties > being revisited? I am one of those that pushed for inmutability early on > and would like to know why are we continuing to hit on this issue. I think I pushed a bit for imutability too ( on the first implementation of Property ) :-) And I haven't changed my mind. PropertyHelper adds "dynamic properties" - i.e. properties that are evaluated. And it add a pluggable store for properties. > If people want mutable things, they can use References for that, which ARE > mutable. Maybe all what we need is syntax to be able to use then as > strings, and a simple task to create string references: > > <reference name="XRef" value="ZZZ"/> > > <echo>$[XRef]</echo> I don't think you need a special syntax to display the references. Getting a property or reference has no effect on the value. <echo>${ref:XRef}</echo> should work fine ( using a dynamic property that gets references ). > Then we will have inmutable PROPERTIES and mutable REFERENCES and people > can pick and choose whatever they want. +1 > OK, maybe ${...} should look in both PROPERTIES and REFERENCES in that > order. That may be confusing, I preffer ${ref:REFERENCE}. ${NAME} will allways return the (imutable) property. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>