> From: Michiel Meeuwissen
>
> Should new bridge functionality which can be implemented only
> by using other bridge functions actually be in the bridge
> interfaces or would it be nicer to have utilities (e.g. in
> org.mmbase.bridge.util) next to the bridge?
>
> E.g. the function Node#getRelatedNodes(String) is only a wrapper to
> Node#getRelatedNodes(NodeManager) so this function with
> 'String' could as well not have been in the bridge.
It's a good thing you bring this up. I would like to see the bridge
interfaces as lean as possible with the required functionality.
This will keep the interfaces and implementations compact, robust and
clear-cut. (The MMObjectBuilder API demonstrates the opposite case.)
Note that the examples you gave are not implementing "new
functionality", but merely providing a shorthand method:
method1(String)
as an alternative to:
method1(cloud.getNodeManager(String))
Personally, I don't see enough benefit here to justify creating the
shorthand method.
If you insist on having such a method at all, it should definitely not
go in the bridge interfaces.
Rob van Maris
Technical Consultant
Quantiq
xmedia & communication solutions
Koninginneweg 11-13
1217 KP Hilversum
T +31 (0)356257211
M +31 (0)642258660
E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
