On 7/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry Rahul but I don't understand your response (sure is for my bad > English). <snip/>
Please feel free to ask me to repeat anything that isn't clear, I will try again. > Can you explain: > " If it must be so (for whatever reason that I am no longer > trying to identify :-), then it must not claim to be any variant of > the basic impl anyway." > <snap/> That was in context of the fact that your requirements seem to necessitate breaking one of the basic contracts of the DialogContextManager interface. One of the reasons why the impls of that interface are final is probably to avoid getting into such situations in the first place. Again, I'd encourage you to work towards getting rid of the requirement of creating a DialogContext of a different name than the one that was supplied. I suspect it is merely symptomatic of some other, perhaps more important, application design problem. -Rahul > Thanks > Mario >
