Re: Persistence containers (was Why all the different string types?)

Jens Miltner wrote:

> 
> I generally agree with your concept here, although from a 'users'  
> perspective (i.e. when 'using' the persistence containers), it may be  
> simpler to have the hierarchy defined intrinsically, so you don't  
> have to do things like:
> 	if ( sandboxSettings->GetIntegerValue("foo", fooValue) )
> 		globalSettings->GetIntegerValue("foo", fooValue);
> 
> If each persistence container could have a fallback persistence  
> container, it could ask the fallback container if it doesn't find a  
> value. In our case, the sandbox settings would be constructed with a  
> pointer to the global settings container, i.e. if a value doesn't  
> exist in the sandbox settings, the settings container will fallback  
> to asking the global settings container. Theoretically, even the  
> global settings container could have a fallback settings container,  
> which contains hardwired defaults...
> 
> Does that make sense to you?

Yes, after sending my last post, I thought of the same thing.  With our 
known 2-level hierarchy, usability may be simplified by embedding a 
parent pointer.  I'll give that a try.  Thanks.

-- 
Guy Rouillier


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cvsgui-dev/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/