Thanks for the review Pavitra. I too was debating whether to follow the FacesWrapper approach. In the end I leaned towards keeping the get*Wrapper method protected, since I couldn't think of any non-hacky reason for exposing this publicly.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Blake Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > 1) Is because there is currently no good reason for developers to burrow > into the ChangeManager implementations Right. > 2) Is because if we did come up with a good reason to implement > FacesWrapper<T>, we need to be able to do so in a backwards compatible > manner Exactly. My initial implementation contained a protected getWrapped() method, though I ended up picking a different name for this protected hook since I wanted to leave open the possibility of implementing FacesWrapper (and exposing a public getWrapped() method) in the future should the need arise. Andy
