cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: Accessors (was Re: Adding cocoon.suicide() to the FOM API.)
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:51:48 GMT
Ralph Goers wrote:

> 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.

It did, I had thought a little bit more about what to call them and 
wanted to tell, Sylvain decreased the confussion by changing the thread 
name.

> 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?

I'm not geting what your aim at, could you tell a little bit about how 
you want to use the accessores so that I can understand why you prefer 
such a solution compared to the component based approach that we have 
discussed.

/Daniel


Mime
View raw message