Hi Gerrit,
Gerrit Voss wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 17:20 -0600, Carsten Neumann wrote:
>> Gerrit Voss wrote:
>
> The problem is the following:
>
> The system allows you to override the default setFoo method. So if I
> want a container (and as containers get more complex this is more
> likely) to do more during setFoo I can prohibit direct field access
> and provide mySpecialSetFoo and I'm sure that this is the one always
> called, even when using the generic interface (e.g. by the loader).
>
> Your handle implementation provides a way around this.
OK, I see your point. So keeping the interface in the containers and
implementing the handles in a way that uses that interface is what you'd
like to see, right ?
>> Do you want the fields to be "dumbed down" again a bit so that they do
>> the ref counting, but changes to them still have to go through the
>> container ?
>
> No, but I want to have the choice. If I want them to go through the
> container I want to be sure that they do so for every possibility.
> Preferable without changing the base class code and adding another
> handle.
>
>> What is the rationale for preferring this way ?
>
> It is not one way or the other, IMHO both have a valid reason to be
> there.
> It is more about making sure that the different possibilities are
> consistent.
Yes, I agree and I understand now that you disagreed only with the way
the handles are implemented, because it basically removes a point of
customization.
Cheers,
Carsten
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Opensg-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
