----- original Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: RTF and table/column widths - table width attribute
Gesendet: Mi 15 Mär 2006 19:33:17 CET
Von: "Andreas L Delmelle"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mar 14, 2006, at 20:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Von: "Andreas L Delmelle"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Anyway, you'd have to go:
> >> Object o = property;
> >> CompoundDatatype c = (CompoundDatatype) o;
> > No, you don't have to. The property would have a method 'getCompound
> > ()' returning a CompoundDatatype. Either it returns this, 'cause it
> > is a CompoundDatatype or it returns a previously set instance
> > (constructor, set-method) or it creates an instance, if necessary
> > (maybe with default types) or even returns 'null' 'cause it's not
> > able to deal with CompoundDatatype. So the only thing you need is a
> > null-check on abstract levels, not a cast or instanceof. It may
> > return a non-null value which maybe this, maybe an attribute, maybe
> > a Singleton, whatever...
> OK. Now I see... Just like it is currently done with, for example,
> Property.getList(), Property.getEnum() etc. (Correct?)
> Anyway, I thought about starting off with making that getObject()
> method protected. AFAICT, it's never used outside of the properties
> package, so in preparation for an eventual revision of this part of
> the code, it seems wise to reduce that method's visibility to
> indicate that it is meant for internal use only, so as not to
> encourage its use elsewhere.
Sounds good to me, btw I think due to the strange naming and return value, most
of the programmers won't call this method. But why not limiting access and
mentioning something in the javadocs like "will be removed in future releases".
There's no need to make it deprecated. If it's only used in the
property-package, it 's not that hard to apply the changes to the necessary
--- original Nachricht Ende ----
"Jetzt Handykosten senken mit klarmobil - 14 Ct./Min.! Hier klicken"