avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Sutic" <leo.su...@inspireinfrastructure.com>
Subject RE: Chaining Methods and Fortress
Date Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:32:54 GMT


> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org] 
> 
> ex-C++ developers 

*Quiet! Don't tell anyone!*

> The one place where this convention was broken (NIO) ended up 
> being regretted by the EG members who pushed through the change.

I'm not familiar with this. Do you have a link? The reason
I'm asking is that I have written code that way, and I would
like to know if there's some issue with it that I have 
overlooked.

Is it related to subclassing (i.e. subtype can not override
return type, even to subtype of supertype's return type)?
 
> If you still want it then I can just create an alternative 
> mechanism that follows standard idioms but I would prefer 
> to only support one mechanism.

I would prefer to keep the code as-is. The code you're changing
is three months old and thus released with Fortress 1.0, irrespective
of the technical merits of one solution over another.

http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-avalon-excalibur/fortress/src/
java/org/apache/excalibur/fortress/util/ContextBuilder.java.diff?r1=1.21
&r2=1.22&diff_format=h

If the issues surrounding the idiom is serious enough I have no problem
fixing it (I can do the proper deprecation cycle). What is your estimate
- 
is it serious enough to warrant deprecation, renaming of methods (as
you can not overload on return type)?

/LS


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message