Re: [jelly] Scope revisited

[Robert McIntosh]

I don't have a use case for events either, but I thought I would throw 
it out there for discussion. I agree that the Scope interface be very 
simple and the context should have a default scope, which can be 
overridden by the user.

~Robert

bob mcwhirter wrote:

2. Have/keep the scope listeners and events?
   

I personally see Scope as a way to keep me from having to keep writing
subclasses of JellyContext when I want the context to be backed by my
own data structure.
Talking with Strachan I think we're pondering 

   context.setDefaultScope( myScope );

In that vein, making Scope very simple be best for my particular
use-case.
public interface Scope
{
   void setVariable(String name, Object value);
   Object getVariable(String name);
}
If the JellyContext wants to check for ListenableScope and fire events,
that's cool, but it'd also be overblown for all of my use-cases.
	-bob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]