Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 52669 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2007 09:15:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Aug 2007 09:15:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 6391 invoked by uid 500); 15 Aug 2007 09:15:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 6327 invoked by uid 500); 15 Aug 2007 09:15:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 6316 invoked by uid 99); 15 Aug 2007 09:15:45 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:15:45 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.51.199.25] (HELO mail1.dslextreme.com) (66.51.199.25) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:15:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 32319 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2007 09:15:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [127.0.0.1]) (66.51.196.164) by mail1.dslextreme.com with (RC4-MD5 encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:15:20 -0700 Message-ID: <46C2C430.2040808@dslextreme.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:15:28 -0700 From: Ralph Goers Reply-To: rgoers@apache.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Expression Block References: <46C298B7.7090109@apache.org> <46C2B119.5060503@apache.org> <46C2B6FF.1030705@apache.org> <46C2C02C.7030802@dslextreme.com> <46C2C12A.7060209@apache.org> <46C2C39E.10307@dslextreme.com> In-Reply-To: <46C2C39E.10307@dslextreme.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Oh darn. It is too late at night I guess. This example doesn't illustrate the problem as it doesn't matter whether the packages match. Ralph Goers wrote: > As I pointed out though, that can create problems for the > implementor. As an example, you might have in an abstract class: > > public void something(String parm1) { > something(verify(parm1), null, null); > } > > public void something(String parm1, String parm2) { > something(parm1, parm2, null); > } > > public void something(String parm1, String, parm2, String parm3) { > doSomething(verifyP1(parm1), verifyP2(parm2), verifyP3(parm3)); > } > > protected abstract void doSomething(String parm1, String parm2, String > parm3); > > This construct can't be implemented if the packages aren't the same. >> Carsten >> >> >>