On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 April 2012 16:53, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]> wrote: > > BasicClassOrganizer has no users... Is it there for any purpose? > > > > What about joining them? > > > > Ehh... i was also looked at those classes couple years ago and > wondered why if its really worth > having so complex implementation to save few bytes of space.. > > I would rewrite this stuff and leave just a Categorizer with clean > protocol and structure: > yes - categorizer holds categories (order could be important, but i would > just keep it unspecified , i.e, > yes. I was working in a simple version having #sort:, #sortAlphabetically, #sortByAmmountOfElements > instead > OrderedCollection ( categoryName -> {.. category items .. } ) > > I would use Dictionary > #categoryName -> Set(items) > I'd like having a Category object there. > > this class should serve basic operations like adding /removing and queries: > - what is a categor(ies) of element (if element can be include only > into single category at once) > - what are category names > - what are elements of specific category.. > Period. > And it actually can serve as a general categorizer (not just for > classes/packages). > but then we have to put the changes announcements/notifications in another place > > The way how BasicClassOrganizer using inheritance is abuse.. > since it extends a clean concept (Categorizer) with unrelated stuff, > like classComment and commentStamp. > Ok, you are making me open an issue to move those to class :). 1.5? > Class organizer, should instead delegate, or even better, Class > should use two different fields for categories and class comment.. > but not mixing everything into one pile of mess. > > > Guille > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >
