On Tuesday 03 February 2004 21:58, Leo Sutic wrote:
> Niclas,
>
> before digging into the MutableConfiguration issue, I suspect that
> we have some kind of communications failure that keeps damaging
> this discussion. Let me give you my view of it:
I am REALLY trying to understand your PoV...
> Unfortunately, you're not letting me know what I
> failed to communicate!
WHAT & WHY is the main questions... still... see below.
> Not quite.
>
> "I have code that currently pass around a DefaultConfiguration
> instance.
I think it would help a lot by specifying WHERE such "pass around" is being
made. When I see this, I assume "to the component", which is a big -1.
> > HOW,
> We (Avalon) have utility code that take Configurations as
> parameters. Making MutableConfiguration not extend Configuration
> would mean that it could not be used with that code, which
> seems like a waste to me.
There are two ways;
public class DefaultConfiguration
implements Configuration, MutableConfiguration
or
what I like even more, coming from someone else (can remember who, sorry!)
public interface ConfigurationMutator
{
void setXXX( XXX value );
Configuration getCurrentConfiguration();
}
LS,
I think I am giving this a lot of thought, and is just cautious about the
"geography" targetted, and IMHO you have not been very clear about "intent"
and "geography".
And mentioning vaguely, and far too little, WHAT is needed and WHY, and
jumping straight into a discussion of HOW, and manage to get a few others to
dive into that discussion generating 2 dozen or more messages about the
details in the implementation, is not a good way to convince _me_.
YET, I don't feel you have provided any additional information that makes the
issue clearer. You may have a great thing up your sleeve, and I hope you can
manage to convey that so that we all (dumb headed idiot like myself) can
understand and appreciate it.
<quote>
I have code that currently pass around a DefaultConfiguration instance.
</quote>
If we start with this statement...
1. Are you writing a component, container or something completely different?
2. Why is this instance passed around? There must be some kind of purpose
assigned to the desire of making it Mutable. What is that?
3. In what sense is this re-usable? If there is no re-usability benefits, what
other benefit does an interface introduce?
I am not afraid of looking like an idiot. I rather ask dumb questions and get
rectified than forever being dumb, so please bear with me... :o)
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
