Hi there, just to be more clear. I'm not very strong with it, so if others prefer we can just release it like it is...
Bye, Norman 2011/7/18 Norman Maurer <[email protected]>: > Maybe use some extra interface which just contains the property names. > It just looks ugly to not have them somewhere as a static field the > dev can use to set this kind of stuff. Typing the name is kind of > error phrone .. > > Bye, > Norman > > > 2011/7/18 Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]>: >> 2011/7/18 Norman Maurer <[email protected]>: >>>Stefano Bagnara wrote: >>>> My main concern is that "dom" api is a lot limited unless you use >>>> "setAttribute" with some magic parameter that you expect to work like >>>> our default implementation does. This doesn't sound good to me for an >>>> API. >>>> >>>> That said I'm fine with a 0.7 release from current trunk. It's not >>>> perfect, but a step forward from previous releases. >>> >>> i think it would sense to expose those property names as public static >>> fields. are you guys ok with it? If so I will commit the this and >>> after that start the release process... >> >> Don't know: in what class would you publish them? If they have to be >> part of the interface then why not to add specific/typed setters for >> each property? Instead if they have to be in the implementation I >> don't think it worth using them as (if used) it would break even more >> the service locator pattern. >> >> Stefano >> >
