leosutic    2002/10/04 02:20:01

  Modified:    util/src/java/org/apache/excalibur/util MultiDelegate.java
  Log:
  Javadoc fixes - added criteria for equality.
  
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.6       +13 -2     
jakarta-avalon-excalibur/util/src/java/org/apache/excalibur/util/MultiDelegate.java
  
  Index: MultiDelegate.java
  ===================================================================
  RCS file: 
/home/cvs/jakarta-avalon-excalibur/util/src/java/org/apache/excalibur/util/MultiDelegate.java,v
  retrieving revision 1.5
  retrieving revision 1.6
  diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6
  --- MultiDelegate.java        4 Oct 2002 02:57:47 -0000       1.5
  +++ MultiDelegate.java        4 Oct 2002 09:20:01 -0000       1.6
  @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@
    *     }
    * }
    * </pre>
  -
  + *
    * <p>
    *   The Listener interface is what we use to interact with.  We can add new 
Listener
    *   instances to the <code>MultiDelegate</code> through the 
<code>registerListener</code>
  @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@
    *     </li>
    *     <li>
    *       Just as with any class that implements two interfaces, any code can cast 
the
  - *       <code>MultiDelegate</code> to the interface (in our example, 
<code>Listener</code).
  + *       <code>MultiDelegate</code> to the interface (in our example, 
<code>Listener</code>).
    *       Take the normal precautions you would when you only want to expose one of 
the
    *       interfaces.
    *     </li>
  @@ -151,6 +151,17 @@
    *       It is also legal for delegates to remove themselves
    *       from the <code>MultiDelegate</code> when invoked,
    *       or perform operations on it.
  + *     </li>
  + *     <li>
  + *       The criteria that we use to test if two MultiDelegates are equal is that 
they
  + *       must be the same. That is, the identity equality operator, 
<code>==</code>, is used.
  + *       The rationale behind this is that if you have two MultiDelegates that refer
  + *       to the same delegates, and you then create a third MultiDelegate and add 
the two
  + *       previous ones, you should end up with one master MultiDelegate with two 
sub-MultiDelegates,
  + *       and not trip over the set-like behavior which would give you one master 
MultiDelegate
  + *       and a single sub-MultiDelegate. You could also add two non-equal 
MultiDelegates to
  + *       a MultiDelegate, and then via add and remove make them equal and by that 
violate the
  + *       set-like behavior.
    *     </li>
    *   </ul>
    * </p>
  
  
  

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to