Pierre van Rooden wrote: > Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > >added a getFunctionValue(Node, parameters) to NodeFunction, which > >facilitated easy and consisten implementing using bridge objects, you > >can still override getFunctionValue(MMObjectNode..), but also > >getFunctionValue(Node, ) (make sure the funciton has a 'cloud' > >parameter though. > > I am not sure if it is wise to add methods to the Core that use bridge > classes? > While I am all for making a core that implements and facilitates for the > bridge interface, I think we should think about this a bit before we go > add all kinds of methods. > We may be risking going a bit too fast here. At the very least I think > we should discuss this.
Perhaps. I actually see this as an indication that NodeFunction should not have been in MMObjectBuilder after all. Perhaps it must be a stand-alone class in org.mmbase.util.functions itself. Then, the use of a bridge interface hurst considerbly less, because it is not 'used in core', but only in a utility. Accidentely, at the moment NodeFunction is or at least can be a static inner class, so making it stand alone is perhaps better, and at least possible. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
