On 10/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Resource class itself could perhaps be simplified further, > like changeset r6056 did for the .url could also be done for > the .name, .shortname and .summary - I've not gone to the point > to remove the class completely, as I still think that having the > ` __call__` and `child` methods, plus the possibility to access > directly the `.realm`, `.id`, `.version` and `.parent` information > without having to resort to tuple and list manipulations is a > must.
I agree--having a simple class for Resources is still easier to deal with and less error-prone than a list of tuples, and also easier to extend in the future, if necessary, without breaking everything that uses it. Having one more small class of objects being passed around is not really going to hurt anything, I don't think. Erik --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
