Agreed. Kevin Menard wrote: > I'll test this is the next few days, but don't expect to see anything > problematic. > > I guess the whole RC thing snuck up on me though. I'd really like to > see the whole type coercion system looked at again. I know we've > ping-ponged on this a few times, but the framework has evolved a fair > bit since then and I do think it's worth another look. As Robert > pointed out in TAPESTRY-2491, we have four ways of doing type > coercion: > > Translators > ValueEncoders > PrimaryKeyEncoders > TypeCoercers > > While I can appreciate the value of each being used in a particular > context, it seems as though the framework is even inconsistent with > its usage at times. Any custom implementation of one almost implies > an implementation of the others and more often than not a simple > adapter is used because the code is so common between them all. It > strikes me as something that's perhaps over-engineered and the > practicality of a single interface may trump the separation of > concerns benefit. I think it's one of the framework's "gotchas" that > we could address without much hassle. > > If we do decide to keep the system as is, I guess that's fine as well. > It's not really broken. But, I would like to see some discussion on > it leading to some decisive path. > >
-- http://thegodcode.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
