Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Considering that the newName method is currently called only during the
> creation of a new MailImpl object I think that a third solution would
> be better.
This is just using a constructor instead of the duplicate() call. But OK.
> We don't use the duplicate because we can't assume the originalMail is a
> MailImpl as the contract is that we receive a Mail object.
Well, then duplicate(...) is pretty useless. :-)
> Add a constructor to MailImpl:
> public MailImpl(Mail original) that simply create a newName
> and then calls this(original, newName(original));
MailImpl(Mail) should not create a new name. If we want to use the contructor
approach, go with the same pattern:
MailImpl(Mail orig) { this(orig, false) }
MailImpl(Mail orig, boolean newName) { ... }
Work for you?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
