Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Tonny Kohar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes each implementation certainly have different needs. Just >> suggestion, do you think is a good idea to provide default (traverse >> all in structure order or type order) as part of library ? > > The only other (beside NoOp) implementation that I can think of that > is reasonably common, would be that the base class keep track of > 'current position' of the 'walker'. > Perhaps that is low overhead enough to be part of the standard adapter. > Rickard?
This is sort of similar to how the Bind method works, as it gets not a reference to the object being visited, but to a tracker of position (Resolution). The same could be done here I supposed. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
