"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
> Nope. The two levels of methods (get/retrieve and new/create) are there to
> seperate Rack-level concerns from implementation concerns. getItem() and
> newItem() handle maintenance of Rack-level invariants such as the retrieval
> cache, while retrieveItem() and createIt
At 10:33 AM 7/4/00 +0400, Jephte CLAIN wrote:
>
>Back to my first question: is it intended that Rack.createItem (a IMHO
>low level method) calls Rack.getItem (a IMHO higher level method) to
>check the existence of the item?
Yes. It is perfectly valid OO design (and common framework-building
prac
"Phillip J. Eby" wrote:
> >When Philipp wake up (I guess he's asleep right now :-)), he might give
> >his opinion about that.
> I've been on vacation.
I knew it. But it's always funny to play with timezone issues.
> I'm basically with Mike on this one, with a slight
> amplification on my intentio
At 11:54 AM 6/27/00 +0400, Jephte CLAIN wrote:
>mike wrote:
>> There is no way to infinite recursion if Rack.getItem is leaved
>> untouched.
>Ah ah. But people will touch it. Like me for example :-)
>There is no way to prevent overriding getItem from a ZClass for example.
>And it *will* recurse i
Jephte CLAIN wrote:
>
> mike wrote:
> > There is no way to infinite recursion if Rack.getItem is leaved
> > untouched.
> Ah ah. But people will touch it. Like me for example :-)
> There is no way to prevent overriding getItem from a ZClass for example.
> And it *will* recurse infinitely, making Z
mike wrote:
> There is no way to infinite recursion if Rack.getItem is leaved
> untouched.
Ah ah. But people will touch it. Like me for example :-)
There is no way to prevent overriding getItem from a ZClass for example.
And it *will* recurse infinitely, making Zope dumping core.
> getItem/newIt
Jephte CLAIN wrote:
>
> mike wrote:
> > > This causes infinite loop because Rack.newItem calls Rack.createItem
> > > which calls my (modified) getItem
> >
> > 1. Leave getItem untouched. Move all that SQL-related stuff into the
> > retrieveItem method which *is intended* to be overriden.
> >
> >
mike wrote:
> > This causes infinite loop because Rack.newItem calls Rack.createItem
> > which calls my (modified) getItem
>
> 1. Leave getItem untouched. Move all that SQL-related stuff into the
> retrieveItem method which *is intended* to be overriden.
>
> 2. Move newItem stuff into Specialist
Jephte CLAIN wrote:
>
> mike wrote:
> > Jephte CLAIN wrote:
> > > Rack.createItem (low level method) first calls Rack.getItem (higher
> > > level method) to check the existence of the item.
> > > This causes infinite loop in certain cases. It should (IMHO) call
> > > Rack.retrieveItem instead
> >
mike wrote:
> Jephte CLAIN wrote:
> > Rack.createItem (low level method) first calls Rack.getItem (higher
> > level method) to check the existence of the item.
> > This causes infinite loop in certain cases. It should (IMHO) call
> > Rack.retrieveItem instead
> Could you provide an example please?
Jephte CLAIN wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> Rack.createItem (low level method) first calls Rack.getItem (higher
> level method) to check the existence of the item.
> This causes infinite loop in certain cases. It should (IMHO) call
> Rack.retrieveItem instead
>
Could you provide an example please?
Mik
11 matches
Mail list logo
