On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 05:51:10AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Jon Stevens wrote:
> >
> > on 7/11/01 8:44 PM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I dunno ... I run across this a lot, and quite frankly it doesn't
> > > bother me to just do a new <FOO>.
> > >
> > > The problem that I see is that this makes the API for VelocityContext
> > > different than that of Context - so if you get into the [bad] habit of
> > > using the helper methods instead of just using something like
> > >
> > > context.put( "foo", new Integer(2));
> > >
> > > then when you move that code into a more generic situation where you are
> > > passed a Context rather than a VelocityContext, all will break. (Don't
> > > even suggest this for the Context interface...:)
> > >
> > > geir
> >
> > More detail needed:
> >
> > Why exactly is it bad?
> >
> > -jon
>
> Why is adding to the Context interface bad? Because then every
> implementation of Context then has to support those methods. It takes
> the interface from 5 methods to 13 methods, with no real functional
> addition other than you can avoid typing 'new <CLASS>( arg )' when you
> want to convert a primitive to an Object.
>
> It's a nice convenience, but is that worth it?
I wasnt suggesting adding methods to the interface, just the
implementation. If I was suggesting the former I would have put that in
the diff ;-)
> geir
>
>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> System and Software Consulting
> Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
> You have a genius for suggesting things I've come a cropper with!
