DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 New Preferences Architecture ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-09-19 12:31 ------- > Right, no-one should use the same params object for multiple clients or methods > and expect setters to be invoked without side effects. That should be made > clear in the JavaDocs for the constructors that accept params objects. I agree this could cause some strange problems. Is there even a case to share the same instance of a params object between multiple methods/clients? If not, perhaps the constructor should always make copies. > It would surely be useful if all params objects were cloneable. I'd say that > on cloning, a params object should copy the parameters it holds locally, but > keep the same reference for the default params. No need to clone defaults, > since they are accessed read-only. Sounds like a good idea. I would suggest a copy constructor along with/instead of Cloneable as cloning can be a little ugly. > While you're at it, can you add an "implements Serializable" as well? > I don't know what it would be good for, but maybe someone someday wants > do deserialize params objects in an HttpParamsFactory. Agreed. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
