+1 to subclassing and agreement ;)
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:38:27 -0600, steve cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[SNIPPED]
> On Wednesday 07 January 2004 11:44 am, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeffrey D. Brekke writes:
>> >[Alternatives to VMS Parser/Version issue]
>> >
>> >Another alternative is to create another parser, creating two VMS
>> >parsers, potentially sub-classing one VMS parser to avoid code
>> >duplication. A specialized VMS parser that will filter off
>> multiple >versions. This solves the contract problems with the
>> parsers and
>>
>> I was about to say "Eureka!, that's the right solution." as far as
>> the specific VMS parser case goes, but there's still the problem of
>> how to make it filter off multiple versions when called using
>> readNextEntry and parseFTPEntry. Unless I'm missing something, we
>> still have to support some hook for the postfiltering.
>> Nonetheless, splitting the VMS parsing functionality into two
>> separate classes (one derived from the other) is cleaner than using
>> the versioning property.
> I think we're all in agreement here. The subclass is cleanest the
> way to go. (See, Jeffrey, that wasn't so hard).
[SNIPPED]
--
=====================================================================
Jeffrey D. Brekke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wisconsin, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
