Peter Donald wrote: > On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:28, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > ... On The need for Context subclasses ... > >>I don't understand, sorry. >>As I said above, any cast to a context is a big mistake IMO. >>Please explain why you nead methods. > > The explanation to this is no different from the last two times I have > explained this exact same point to you. I thought you conceded it was > necessary last time? Or have you come up with a solution for the problem?
I don't remember this at all. What I do remember instead, is that I tried argumenting that the Context itsef could be avoided in many cases, not about the need of Context *subclasses*. I have also looked in the mail archives, reread threads like http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=102558313100001&r=1&w=2 and found no mail where doing public void contextualize(Context context){ MyContext mycontext = (MyContext) context; } is better than public void contextualize(Context context){ MyContext mycontext = (MyContext) context.get(MyContext.KEY); } Do others remember what Peter is talking about? :-? -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
