To me, it still looks like something that is better in a "tool" class.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Salmon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 8:04 PM
>
>
> 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!
>
