Leszek Gawron wrote: > > 2. Some components (like CocoonOverridePropertyConfigurer, which has > already been fixed) use the Settings object but happily fallback to > default mode when settings object is not available. The result of such > situation is that a bean that has been incorrectly dependence injected > uses other running mode than you might think. Beans using running mode > should simply throw if they cannot determine one. > > I am probably picky about this but hey - you're the ones I've learnt my > values from :) > :) Actually I'm not sure - now, the reason why I wrote the code like this is for unit testing. You can write a unit test for the configurer which does not need to setup any dependency. But the more I think about it, the more I agree with you: we should raise an exception when the settings object is not set rather than falling back to some default value. This comes with the cost to setup a settings object (or a mock) for testing, but makes the code safer.
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Chief Architect http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
