There is no reason for setTarget to take to paremeters. The signature should be setTarget(new_target)
The implementation should map the proper target to the relevant internal storage fields. -- Francis J. Lacoste [email protected] On May 10, 2010, Leonard Richardson wrote: > > I agree with Francis, but I'd also like to add that it seems hard to > > expose 'never both' over API's AIUI - that is, setTarget doesn't > > permit both package and project to be set, but individual fields would > > permit that. > > If the individual fields have setTarget() as their mutator, then any > attempt to set both 'package' and 'project' would fail, just as any > attempt to invoke setTarget(package=foo, project=bar) would fail. Any > attempt to set 'package' when 'project' is already set would implicitly > clear out 'project'. > > I take Francis's general point that we should think about the API that > will feel most natural to the end-user, rather than publishing our > internal API directly. > > I also take his specific point that having a single, polymorphous > 'target' field > two fields > named operation. You can set 'target' to a > package or a project, if you need to see what kind of object the target > is you can GET it, if you want there to be no target you can set a > single field to None. > > Leonard
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
