On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 11:22:28AM +0200, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > > Carsten Ziegeler a écrit : > </snip> > > Yep : HEY, TEAM, WHAT DO YOU THINK ? > > > We have to change the two Interfaces (Matcher and Selector) anyway, > > so it shouldn't hurt to add the SourceResolver into one signature. > > > Several points here : > - incompatible interface changes : interfaces that have today both > object model and SourceResolver can live unchanged with an enhanced > object model. This small inconsistency would be the price for > compatibility.
I agree completely here, +1 for adding sourceResolver to the objectModel and in the future we can deprecate the methods which have it as a parameter and create new ones that take it from the objectModel instead > - performance loss : right, but consider the request : it's much more > used than the source resolver and is only accessible from the object > model i think the same, even for the performance one map lookup shouldn't hurt that much (though never did any tests !!!) > - less readable code : agree. Take a look a the new ObjectModelHelper in > the 2.1 cvs : I often use this pattern to provide typed access to > well-known entries in a Map or request and session attributes. took a look and personally like it, it's leaving me though meditating philosophically wheter java is the right language if you consider these tons of wrapping code for get/set methods laying around :-?.... but yes, this helper will make code cleaner :-)) > -- > Sylvain Wallez > Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com > ciao, martin -- 2CC0 4AF6 92DA 5CBF 5F09 7BCB 6202 7024 6E06 0223 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
