On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Adam Murdoch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > BTW, I'm not suggesting you do all this work, as you really only need the > equivalent of configure(object, scriptPath). I'm just trying to figure out a > direction for this stuff. > > LOL, thanks Adam. I was worried about 2 seconds, then realized that there was no way you wanted me to do all that. I think I like the unification of these items, they are obviously very related. What class would have the configure(*) methods? This would need to be available to almost everything. Your unification thoughts almost relegate init/settings/build scripts to different flavors of a single thing. Maybe a common base class for the delegate objects for these scripts? Or maybe composition? I think I prefer composition here, but there are several methods that will need to be delegated. Maybe a "ConfigurableScript" interface to describe the method signatures, a "ScriptExecutor" class that contains the implementation (and implements the "ConfigurableScript" interface). Then each of the appropriate classes can implement the interface and delegate those methods to the class. Seems inelegant, but reasonable. -- John Murph Automated Logic Research Team
