Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
PropertyAccessor is not bad. Any of the Property* names are ok for me, but Container IMHO doesn't make it.Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:Carsten Ziegeler wrote:Actually, also given the recent difficulties in naming, it's eally quite good! The "property" part is IMHO to the point, I just don't like the "container" part much.Hi, to get some basis for discussion about the move of the InputModules from the Cocoon.xconf to the sitemap I checked in a proposal in o.a.c.sitemap. I named this concept PropertyContainer (great, isn't it?)
What about
PropertyAccessor
PropertyResolver
But given that they could also write,
PropertyHandler
PropertyManager
Hmm, PropertyDeliverer or PropertyProvider? From your list above I like PropertyAccessor the most.
Just remember that they could also write values, no?
It's logical and sensible, I'll leave to others to eventually confute this, based on experience and need.The new interface is different from the inputmodule one, and lacks the output module part.
Why are they different?
There is no more the capability of getting the names and values of all propertis it seems.
Yupp. It's not always possible to get all the names - so getting the names does not make so much sense. For example if JXPath is used it's useless. So instead of defining a method which is only usable in 5% of the use cases, I just left it out.
Personally I've worked a lot with jxpath variables in Ant files (an Ant extension to get ptoperties via jxpath) and it works like a charm.
[...]
I'm definately for it, let's define the details :-)What do you think is missing?
The output part, ie OutputModules.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
