cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Accessors (was Re: Adding cocoon.suicide() to the FOM API.)
Date Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:14:50 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:

>>
>>
>> I can agree that it seem to break some common ideas about good coding 
>> practice. But we have been through the arguments and it seem OK. We 
>> probably find out if it works when we start to implement and 
>> integrate it.
>
>
>
> Oh yes, sure. I totally agree with the concept. It's not a factory and 
> it's not an object holder as depending on the implementation it can be 
> either or even something else. So accessor is fine!
>
> Sylvain

Did this accessor thing evolve from another discussion?  It seemed to 
pop up out of thin air in this thread.

Is this what I hope it means?  If it is, then I hope to see classes like 
Request, Session, Context, etc. be modified to implement the interface.  
To me, this would mean that they implement a static get method that 
returns the appropriate instance of the object.  Perhaps a better name 
for this would be Accessible.  I guess your plan is to implement a 
separate Accessor class to do this instead?

Ralph


Mime
View raw message