Hi Oleg, > Parameter linking is gone for good. Please review carefully and let me > know if you find anything disagreeable. I think this change makes > parameter resolution significantly simpler and thus less error-prone. I > _personally_ feel quite happy about it.
Some details (SPS = SimpleParamStack, CPS = ClientParamsStack): - SPS constructor expects params in child-parent order, while CPS constructor expects them in parent-child order - SPS uses "Param" in the name, CPS uses "Params" I don't care which way these two are done, but it should be consistent. I think I chose "Params" for CPS because the interface HttpParams also has the s, but I don't remember for sure. - SPS and CPS have slightly different behavior on copy(). I'm fine with the differing behavior, but the one for SPS should be documented too. - SPS.isParameterSet checks only the child/local params, not the parent. If that is the intended behavior, it needs to be documented. CPS behaves differently. The interface docs don't say anything about local or non-local parameters, I think I deleted that stuff recently because it didn't make sense anymore after the linking was moved to a separate interface. - It's worth a JavaDoc (class) comment that the set and remove methods will affect the child/local params only. That's also the rationale for cloning only those in copy(). > I'll go ahead with cutting the release on Friday provided there are no > complaints about the latest change. OK. I'll see whether I can provide a patch for parameter unsetting this evening. If it goes into beta1, it can be used by the next client alpha. But that's already assuming the "global null" approach, which I would have preferred to discuss first against the other alternatives. cheers, Roland --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
