Hi Fred, On 04/24/2009 09:10 PM Frederik Holljen wrote: > 2009/4/24 Tobias Schlitt <t...@ez.no>: >> On 04/22/2009 10:08 PM Frederik Holljen wrote:
>>> Hmm... isn't that a bit obfuscated? How are people supposed to know >>> (without looking in the docs) what the purpose is for each of them? >>> What exactly (short in your words) does the new one do? >> ezcPersistentSession >> Basic, original session. >> ezcPersistentIdentitySession >> Decorator for ezcPersistentSession, which performs identity >> management. >> What exactly is obfuscated? > In the original mail the name was ezcPersistentObjectSession... Yes. Let me elaborate a bit more: The problem with the decorator (ezcPersistentIdentitySession) is, that it is not "instanceof compatible" with ezcPersistentSession. This is especially a problem in ezcPersistentSessionInstance (the signleton/registry class for the sessions). Therefore my proposal was to introduce a new interface, which will be implemented by both ezcPersistentSession and ezcPersistentIdentitySession (and possible later decorators to these). For this interface I proposed the name ezcPersistentObjectSession. > ezcPersistentIdentitySession is much clearer. But now you're saying > it's a decorator (as in the decorator pattern?) I would expect any > Session to inherit from ezcPersistentSession. Am I confused?' We modelled ezcPersistentIdentitySession as a decorator to ezcPersistentSession to allow further extensions to be applied to it later (additional decorators). And yes, "decorator" as in "decorator pattern". :) Regards, Toby -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vennlig hilsen / With kind regards Tobias Schlitt (GPG: 0xC462BC14) eZ Components Developer t...@ez.no | eZ Systems AS | ez.no -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
