On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:30, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > Not that I following too close what you are doing in myrmidon, but > wouldn't Task.getName() be associated in peoples minds with Task.setName() > ? The later being the method for processing an attribute named "name".
Neither getName() nor setName() will be present in the end Task API (Nor will there be setTaskType/getTaskType()). Names are something that a container manages and thus the only way for a task to even know about them is to grab it from the TaskContext. > In a GUI environment you may have the GUI trying to treat the task > as a Bean and hence thinking that getName() and setName() refer to the same > value, JavaScript takes the same approach. But here getName() referes to > something completely different. not sure what you mean. There is no public setter or getters for name anymore. > Somehow I think we need to deliniate some pattern to diferentiate general > APIs of tasks from the patterns used to define attributes and elements of > tasks (manipulated at the XML level) I think that is important to enforce > separation between internal, public, and XML accessible APIs. Personally I think that there should be no internal bits exposed by a Task using setters. -- Cheers, Pete ----------------------------------------------------------- "Remember, your body is a temple; however, it's also your dancehall and bowling alley" -- Dharma Montgomery ----------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
