> Assembler: New Method: Current Return: Proposed Return:
> ---------- --------------- --------------- ----------------
> Action performAction void void
> Layout buildLayout void ConcreteElement
> Navigation buildNavigation ConcreteElement ConcreteElement
> Page buildPage void ConcreteElement
> Screen buildScreen ConcreteElement ConcreteElement
Thinking about it a little more I would be +1 on keeping the build() methods
and renaming to Action.perform(). I agree that it's redundant to name the
methods buildScreen(), buildNavigation(), etc and that build() depending on
what object it's a part of conveys the full meaning. I'd also like to hear
a reason for changing the return types.
One issue is that we were talking about deprecating the existing build()
methods and adding build* and doBuild*. If we keep the method name build()
it makes it hard to deprecate it. Since it's not too hard to do a global
replace from build() to doBuild() and Action.build() to Action.perform()
what do you think about just updating the projects that use Turbine? Yes I
know it would be a hassle but I think it's a better naming convention. It
would be a similar situation to the package reorg a while back.
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
