Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Jan 15, 2008 1:51 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Btw If I am alone with this idea, then no problem. I just wanted to
share that IMHO this (that module with 2 classes) makes no sense.
i'm not sure that the number of classes should be relevant: a better
test is whether the module is a logical and cohesive unit. in this
case, i agreed that it is debatable. but it's a code smell rather than
an anti-pattern. i would like to indicate clearly that there's
something not quite right about JAMES 3.0 rather than hiding it.
I don't care if we want to call it anti-pattern, code smell or
differently. I don't like it and I think it is complicating things
instead of making it simpler (that was the original goal).
But, again, if *I* am the only one with this vision then this
conversation does not worth our time anymore :-)
We probably just have different styles: you are the more active at the
moment and no one else expressed his opinion. So your way is the right way.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
