Thank you. Where can I dig up more examples of FieldHandlers?
-----Original Message----- From: Keith Visco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 4:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [castor-dev] Correct Implementation of a Field Handler] There is nothing wrong with directly implementing the FieldHandler interface, however I think the best approach is to extend either GeneralizedFieldHandler or AbstractFieldHandler... Extending GeneralizedFieldHandler will allow you to write re-usable FieldHandlers, otherwise your FieldHandler will most likely be for a specific field within a specific Class. Extending AbstractFieldHandler will allow you access to the XMLFieldDescriptor which has certain information about the field which may be utilized by your FieldHandler. (Note: GeneralizedFieldHandler extends AbstractFieldHandler) If you want to implement FieldHandler directly, then create a base FieldHandler class that all your FieldHandlers can extend. That way if the FieldHandler interface changes in the future you can minimize the changes needed when upgrading to a newer version of Castor. --Keith -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [castor-dev] Correct Implementation of a Field Handler Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:56:50 -0500 From: "Rodriguez, Christine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have been creating field handlers by implementing the FieldHandler interface. Is this correct? But I have seen FieldHandlers created by extending GeneralizedFieldHandler. Is there a correct use of either of the two for different scenarios? I appreciate some help. Thanks, Christine ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
