Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > Pierre van Rooden wrote: > > Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > > >Could't one apply the same argument as you did above? > > > > Probably. I can certainly make the methods protected in PageContext > > (since scanpage calls them). > > I don't think that would matter > > I forgot that in scanpage the same methods have the wrong name indeed. > > Yes, why not making them protected, or simply rmeove them and make the > members protected, hey, those are even public.. Could scan-page not have a > public copy (could be created in the constructor). > > My point is that if we need a PageContext object we perhaps should make it > as clean as possible.
I think as such, the PageContext will start with 2 deprecated members and perhaps 2 deprecated methods (and do'nt see the point of resetting req and res). I think it is odd to have a new class with deprecated stuff in it, but well, if at least it is clear that it _is_ deprecated, I'm not against that. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US
