Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
<snip/>
BTW, concerning what to call the "object accessors", what about just "accessor", e.g. RequestAccessor, SessionAccessor etc.
"RequestObjectAccessor" or "SessionObjectAccessor" really would be too verbose, but "ObjectAccessor" for the general interface is maybe less abstract than simply "Accessor".
Its also ok.
Now talking about abstraction, it will be more difficult to write something more abstract than an interface having a single "Object get()" method ;-)
The Component marker interface was a little bit more abstract ;)
Oh yes, forgot about that one ;-)
Well...
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
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
