Re: *Parameterizable*
Ryan Hoegg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.jcontainer.interest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
peter-4lf8KW9E9MLMqX/[email protected] wrote: >Hi, > >From: "Mircea Toma" <[email protected]> > > >>I'm trying to understand why Parameterizable+Parameters were kept when the >> >> >DNA > > >>API was created? It looks to me that Parameters are just a particular case >> >> >of > > >>Configuration, which is a flat one. I can understand that Parameters >> >> >object > > >>is very handy but I don't see it as a framework contract. The proof is >> >> >that > > >>Configurable and Parameterizable are mutually excluded. >>Since the DNA is supossed to be a fresh start, I think that just having a >>conversion tool that would transform a Configuration instance to a >> >> >Parameters > > >>instance and removing the Parameterizable interface would be the correct >>approach. >> >> > >I have no strong preference either way. I generally dont use it except in >Embeddor like objects and removing it would make a lot of the code simpler. > >Anyone else have any preferences? > > > In my limited experience with avalon and dna, I have exclusively used Parameters. However, I'd be completely happy with a way to create Configurations that is just as simple. I say remove it. --ryan