On 1/9/07, Eddie Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There seems to be agreement in the behavior, just a problem with naming? Why can't the object delivered to analytics be called a CAS, and CasView be derived from CAS? Backward compatibility will required a migration step that renames the local name receiving the CAS in the method signature and recreates the local name as a CasView with a new line of code.
A CasView is not conceptually a kind of CAS. IMO that should be reason enough not to do that, but if you want technical reasons: A CasView doesn't necessarily have all the methods that are on CAS. A CAS might have deprecated methods that should not be deprecated on CasView. If I have an object that is an instanceof CAS, I wouldn't know whether I have a base CAS or a view, which I was trying to fix. -Adam
