Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> I'm going to make the Turbine.java class a final class. People should NOT be
> subclassing it as there is absolutely NO reason to do so (or at least tell
> me a good reason as I can't think of one) and the Jetspeed people seem to be
> into this for some reason. I think we should nip this idea right in the bud.
>
There are good reasons (just read the thread on this subject in the Jetspeed
mailing-list). Basically it boils down to: while we move most of our
components to services, we must initialize them with our own initialization
code (it was currently done in the Layout: very ugly !)
As Jeff Brekke pointed out, it can be done with a JetspeedService but that
would be an awful hack because such a service would have *no* function,
only initialization code. Subclassing Turbine in order to override the
init() and destroy() calls is much cleaner.
Why are so militant about subclassing Turbine ? You can't deal with every
possible need and especially not transitional need as the one we have in
Jetspeed.
--
Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
