On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:55 PM, James Westby <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:21:56 +0100, Jonathan Lange <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think ultimately you'll need to be explicit. For example, >> IBranchTarget(sourcepackage).name != sourcepackage.name for any >> ISourcePackage. > > Right, that's true, which pretty much rules out the invisible to clients > approach, unless a prefix is added. > > branch_target_name > > would be ok in my eyes, but > > branchTargetNewCodeImport() > > or similar would not be. >
I guess you could implement IBranchTarget(obj).name and IBranchTarget(obj).newCodeImport() on the client-side too. >> > If there are writeable attributes in any adapted objects then you have >> > the choice between a PATCH to the object and it's adapted version that >> > would have to infer which attributes are associated with which object, >> > or two PATCH requests with the inherent atomicity concerns. >> > >> >> I'd lean to the second – to being explicit. The atomicity concerns >> would not be unique to adapted objects. > > True. > > I think we are in agreement then. > > There's pretty much nothing that would stop you implementing this > approach now, just without any sugar to make it easy to do so. Should I > have a look at doing it this way for IBranchTarget.newCodeImport()? > > Actually, perhaps I don't want to volunteer for that, as I'm not sure > how I would implement the canonical url for IBranchTarget, given that it > would change based on the target, and IBranchTarget doesn't actually > have any attributes for gettting the original object. > It's not on the interface, but all of the implementations define a 'context' property. jml _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
