You don't like if statements? There is another thread around here about sequencing events/commands and there is also Cairngorm's SequenceCommand (though personally I am not a fan of that). As for the Callbacks class you see, that is just a convenient way to wrap a result handler and fault handler- it is still your handler functions that get called, and they receive a ResultEvent or FaultEvent.
I am really confused by the last part of your message. The Command pattern is simply the practice of encapsulating functionality in a class and providing a consistent and generic way to execute it (the execute() method). This pattern is at the very core of Cairngorm. Things like undo and wizards are specific implementations/behaviors that can often be implemented using the Command pattern but are not part of the pattern itself. Consequently, I think it would be inappropriate for any framework to provide these behaviors. If I encountered one that did I would consider it a warning sign that the framework is probably not generic enough and/or is bloated. Just my 2 cents, Ben --- In [email protected], "ACE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is not so much of using If/new callbacks, it is more of a generic > approach. I personally do not like If(s), not a fan at all. > > What I find missing is an easy way of sequencing events as i would > have done in traditional threaded applications. If I was do a > callback, i would prefer to pass a function than a class as you know > then what is going to come back where. > > On a slightly different note, I find that both Cairngorm/UM extensions > have not really provided ways to use the Command pattern, like no ways > to do Undo, wizards etc. What they have with them is a very bare-bones > framework, that I believe has miles to go. > > Nevertheless, good stuff - we have a beginning. > > Thanks for the help. >
