2008/5/29 Michael Hunger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 1) Why do you still publish most of the internal state of the models via > accessor methods? Is there real need for that? > I thought reverting to the real "business" methods on the model removes the > need of publishing the internal state of the > models.
Why? Because I haven't come up with a way not to. If you can, feel free to point out how. I *have* removed a lot of internal state access, and replaced it with business methods, but there is certainly room for more such improvements. > 2) What do you think about taking the model classes for instance > ParameterModel (or CompositeMethodModel) and making it > an private inner class of the "composite" collection type ParametersModel (or > CompositeMethodsModel) allowing acces to > it only through the collection type (including the creation/addition). > Creation of the collection type perhaps via a > static factory method. In general I'm not a big fan of static methods, and I'm especially curious about how that would work in an OSGi environment, which is something we will aim for in the end. It would be a good thing to avoid statics as much as possible I think. As for making some of these models private, well, why? Making them package protected might be a good start, but right now I'm not sure whether that will work out in the end, so I went with public. Again, it's more to do with me not figuring out how to do it than anything else. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
