Geoff Howard wrote:
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> > Thanks Reinhard for the link. Ehm, from what I see there, there is
> > no need/deeper meaning for moving to Resettable. Or did I oversee
> > something?
>
> Well, this message implies that the plan was to use reflection to
> provide back-compatibility with recycle()
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103287310702103&w=2
>
> Don't know if that happened or if it's a good way to go, but that's a
> clue. I'm assuming 2.2 still doesn't compile much less run or we could
> just check this.
>
Yes, I read this - but it doesn't say anything about Resettable. If
reflection is used it only means that I can implement "recycle" without
using the interface.
Carsten
|