On 6/14/07, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand the SetPropertyResolver aspect.
On further reflection, the Set* interface does make
sense, but only as an extension to the Get* interface.
This would be the correct way to set anything that
couldn't be stuffed into the basic String-to-Object
property map (whatever that might be) and would imply
that the entity in question could get anything it
could set. This also implies that the existing
namespace concept that exists but is unused in
PropertyHelper needs to go away. The
setter-that-can-get would parse its own
pseudo-namespace if applicable. Since this would
extend the Get version, I would think it could wait
until the main two interfaces were handled.
Sorry to be a bit thick, but I still don't understand. I don't want
properties to be anything but Strings. We use references to refer to
something else that Strings. I'm still not buying the SetPR given what
I've read so far ;-) --DD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
