Geoff Howard wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > Thanks Reinhard for the link. Ehm, from what I see there, there is > > no need/deeper meaning for moving to Resettable. Or did I oversee > > something? > > Well, this message implies that the plan was to use reflection to > provide back-compatibility with recycle() > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103287310702103&w=2 > > Don't know if that happened or if it's a good way to go, but that's a > clue. I'm assuming 2.2 still doesn't compile much less run or we could > just check this. > Yes, I read this - but it doesn't say anything about Resettable. If reflection is used it only means that I can implement "recycle" without using the interface.
Carsten
