My apologies. I thought it was a *static* factory class, not just a
factory class. This is better. Thank you.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> It's not much of a factory if it has no public methods. I still have
> to subclass AptSinkFactory to use it. The 1.1 release is very
It's not much of a factory if it has no public methods. I still have
to subclass AptSinkFactory to use it. The 1.1 release is very
inconvenient.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Vincent
Siveton wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I guess that you speak about Sink. We decided to use a factory instead
> of. For i
Hi Paul,
I guess that you speak about Sink. We decided to use a factory instead
of. For instance:
AptSinkFactory.createSink( Writer writer, String encoding )
Cheers,
Vincent
2009/7/11 Paul Benedict :
> Just a small gripe: I upgraded from 1.0 to 1.1 and found it surprising
> that the module cons
Just a small gripe: I upgraded from 1.0 to 1.1 and found it surprising
that the module constructors were made protected. Anyway, I subclassed
them privately to continue passing in my java.io.Writer.
Paul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
