> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:47, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > Assume that we ignore syntactic sugar and access data via "well
defined"
> > > entrys. So rather than
> > > ((FooContext)context).getFooDirectory()
> > > we use
> > > (File)context.get( "foo:directory" );
> > Those are not equivalent.
> from a components point of view they are. One is syntactic sugar for the
> other.
No they are not. In the former case, my client code has a declared
dependency on something called FooContext for reasons having nothing to do
with what I actually wish to accomplish. In the latter case, all I my class
depends upon is the basic Context interface, and the desired object type:
File. I do not care HOW I get the File object that represents a directory.
I could not care less about some "FooContext", "BarContext", or ... in this
case ... what is apparently a FUBarContext.
> > In the former case, context IS-A FooContext. In
> > the latter case, context need only HAVE-A FooContext (perhaps).
> I am sure most people here are comfortable with the difference
> between these concepts.
I am certainly hoping that your assertion is correct, but at the moment,
you'd be hard pressed to prove it.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
