avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: Re: [proposal] say no to ROLE
Date Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:25:06 GMT

> From: Berin Loritsch <bloritsch@apache.org>> > The reason here is that the
two work interfaces are very closely 
> > related, but nevertheless they are two different interfaces and it would 
> > be undesirable to merge the two interfaces. My current workaround (with 
> > Fortress) is to separate the interfaces and to use 
> > DelegatingTimeProvider as the TimeProvider implementation:
> > 
> As an FYI, static values do not inherit.  They are scoped by the enclosing
> interface.  So in your example:

Damn I failed to realize this my self: interface extention does not allow 
constant inheritance because this would result in multiple inheritance 

> Will get the results you want without having to do all the workaround junk.
> The value MutableTimeProvider.ROLE is different than the TimeProvider.ROLE.
> Also, note that by using inheritance, you are essentially saying that all
> MutableTimeProviders are TimeProviders and can be used accordingly.  You are
> not implying that all TimeProviders are MutableTimeProviders, as that would
> not be the case.  That is the contract you are introducing into your system,
> and that should be well understood regardless of what lookup value you use
> to get the TimeProvider.
> There is no need to use delegating time providers, etc.

> Neeme Praks wrote:

I totally went on the wrong premise here. Please disregard my last 
email on the topic.  Thanks for the clarification yet again Berin.


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

View raw message