Rob Atkinson wrote:
> It would be nice if we could migrate current Feature to SimpleFeature,
> but maybe the best alternative is to call the new model something that
> reflects the point - GeneralFeature, FlexibleFeature,
> CompleteFeature, FullFeature, GenericFeature, etc
>
Well in a sense we
It would be nice if we could migrate current Feature to SimpleFeature,
but maybe the best alternative is to call the new model something that
reflects the point - GeneralFeature, FlexibleFeature,
CompleteFeature, FullFeature, GenericFeature, etc
I dont know enough to choose between the implementa
Okay, once again with feeling...
The good news is that all three approaches seem reasonable; even, the
nogenerics version is better than I thought it would be.
The naming schemes are *crazy* but I assume that that's orthogonal to
the question at hand of which strategy to adopt.
We sur
You both rock!
"We'll just code up everything to help you others see what we mean."
Very nice, thanks for the examples, diving in now...
--adrian
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Micros
Hi all,
as code seems to work better for all than words, I've added a spike with
samples for the third approach (should call it the first as it was the first
one before being asked to introduce generics to overcome the limitations of
this one)
Call this approach "nogenerics". It digs on adding
