Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> Some comments about PropertyHelper, I think that instead of declering
> members of the class protected we should used private members and set/get
> protected accessors. This produces more refactorable code and without
> funny side effects.
No problem, it's easy to do that. I expect many small changes like that -
but first I would like to get things settled and working well.
> can someone explain (again?) why is the issue of inmutable properties
> being revisited? I am one of those that pushed for inmutability early on
> and would like to know why are we continuing to hit on this issue.
I think I pushed a bit for imutability too ( on the first implementation of
Property ) :-) And I haven't changed my mind.
PropertyHelper adds "dynamic properties" - i.e. properties that are
evaluated. And it add a pluggable store for properties.
> If people want mutable things, they can use References for that, which ARE
> mutable. Maybe all what we need is syntax to be able to use then as
> strings, and a simple task to create string references:
>
> <reference name="XRef" value="ZZZ"/>
>
> <echo>$[XRef]</echo>
I don't think you need a special syntax to display the references.
Getting a property or reference has no effect on the value.
<echo>${ref:XRef}</echo> should work fine ( using a dynamic property
that gets references ).
> Then we will have inmutable PROPERTIES and mutable REFERENCES and people
> can pick and choose whatever they want.
+1
> OK, maybe ${...} should look in both PROPERTIES and REFERENCES in that
> order.
That may be confusing, I preffer ${ref:REFERENCE}.
${NAME} will allways return the (imutable) property.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
