Re: MethodClosure (BCEL Delegator implementation)
Leo Sutic <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.apps.devel,gmane.comp.jakarta.avalon.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Chris! I took a look at your MethodClosure implementation, and it is very interesting. I had hoped that Excalibur's delegate framework would have moved into another project by now (I was hoping for Commons/Lang), and I can't wait to clean out the code from the Excalibur CVS. So just the fact that there is a delegate framework in a project that is "big enough" to have a community to support it is great. That it beats the current implementation speed-wise without any other tradeoffs is excellent. However, I have some issues with the way it is implemented now that have to be solved before it can completely replace the Excalibur implementation: 1. The resulting delegate class must implement equals() in the same way as the Excalibur delegate. 2. I lack the MultiDelegate from Excalibur. 3. I don't understand the MethodClosureKey interface. Is this a way to get a new delegate with the same signature, but pointing to another instance of the handling class? (I.e. a clone() equivalent) If so, why is the first parameter a Class and not an Object? 4. Javadocs. I'm sure the MethodClosure class is equivalent, so you could probably just copy the javadoc from Excalibur. 5. I'm not sure I like the fact that the delegate object also doubles as a factory. You can get method signature collisions. (If I'm wrong on any point above I apologize. I haven't had time for a thorough review of the code.) /LS