Hi all, On 04/24/2009 11:17 PM Frederik Holljen wrote: > On 24/04/2009, Tobias Schlitt <t...@ez.no> wrote: >> On 04/24/2009 09:10 PM Frederik Holljen wrote:
>> 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. > Right, looking at the source I can see that IdentitySession doesn't > inherit anything at the moment adding the interface will solve your > problems. > > Why not name the decorator something with decorator. This clearly > signals the intentions of the class for people who know what a > decorator is. Others will be taught the difference :) > I propose: > ezcPersistentSessionBase or Definition for the interface > ezcPersistentSessionIdentityDecorator for the decorator > Somewhat longer but more descriptive and you'll only write it once anyway... I agree with ezcPersistentSessionIdentityDecorator, that sounds good. However, ezcPersistentSessionBase sounds like an abstract class not like an interface. Anyone another idea? 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
