Sean Legassick a �crit :
> Looks good - though it would be preferable if you could provide diffs
> for patches to existing files.
I will do so in the future.
> a) keep things as is and insist that if the class user wants to use the
> chaining idiom they have to use subclass methods first, so the above
> example would be:
>
> mail.setHtmlMsg(...).setFrom(...)
>
> It's not a very nice requirement of the API.
It may be the cleaner method from the oo point of view.
> b) the other choice is to break the OO a bit and have a setHtmlMsg
> method in the baseclass which does nothing/throws an exception.
I really don't like this method since it complicates further extensions
to the API.
> c) similar to (b) break the OO and subsume all the functionality into
> the baseclass, perhaps having HtmlEmail be a helper class rather than a
> subclass.
Maybe HtmlEmail should be a wrapper. I suggest :
* the methods setFrom(), addTo(), ... return an Email Object
* add the setMsg method to the Email base class.
* the attach() methods still return void.
* HtmlEmail and the sames are wrappers instead of sublclasses
Regis
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
