Today I found the aweful (sorry) ComponentAccessor. I quickly rewrote it
using what I call the 'friends for Java' pattern (described here:
http://kennke.org/blog/2009/01/08/friends-for-java/
).
This has a couple of advantages:
- no reflection (I don't like reflection)
- compile-time safety
- be
Hi Roman,
I'd synchronized setting/getting of access field. And (perhaps) I'd only allow
set this field once.
Regards, Oleg.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Today I found the aweful (sorry) ComponentAccessor. I quickly rewrote it
> using what I call the 'friends for Java
Hi Oleg,
> I'd synchronized setting/getting of access field. And (perhaps) I'd only
> allow
> set this field once.
Good ideas. I implemented both suggestions. Webrev is updated at the
same URL.
/Roman
>
> Regards, Oleg.
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > Today I f
Hi Roman,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
>> I'd synchronized setting/getting of access field. And (perhaps) I'd only
>> allow
>> set this field once.
>
> Good ideas. I implemented both suggestions. Webrev is updated at the
> same URL.
As far as I can see you
Hi Oleg,
> >> I'd synchronized setting/getting of access field. And (perhaps) I'd only
> >> allow
> >> set this field once.
> >
> > Good ideas. I implemented both suggestions. Webrev is updated at the
> > same URL.
>
> As far as I can see you add synchronization only to setter, but you
> should
Looks fine for me.
Oleg.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
>> >> I'd synchronized setting/getting of access field. And (perhaps) I'd only
>> >> allow
>> >> set this field once.
>> >
>> > Good ideas. I implemented both suggestions. Webrev is updated at the
>> > s
Hi Olegm
> Looks fine for me.
Cool. I take it, I have to wait for another reviewer, or can I push it
now? What are the exact rules for this?
/Roman
>
> Oleg.
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > Hi Oleg,
> >
> >> >> I'd synchronized setting/getting of access field. A
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Hi Olegm
>
>> Looks fine for me.
>
> Cool. I take it, I have to wait for another reviewer, or can I push it
> now? What are the exact rules for this?
I'm afraid, I can not be counted as official reviewer, and you have
to wait someone from AW
Hi,
here is my vote for this.
Thanks,
Andrei
Oleg Sukhodolsky wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
Hi Olegm
Looks fine for me.
Cool. I take it, I have to wait for another reviewer, or can I push it
now? What are the exact rules for this?
I'm
