I am +1 on this change. I think it is well justified. Oleg
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 09:59, Ortwin Glück wrote: > Roland Weber wrote: > > Folks, this looks like an API error to me. The protocol security > > should depend on the actual type of the factory passed to the > > constructor, not on the type of the variable it is stored in! > > I agree. It is a design error to use polymorphism when the only > difference in the method signature is a type within the same class > hierarchy. Also the two constructors have duplicate code. The attached > patch takes care of the problem in CVS HEAD. > > Odi > > ______________________________________________________________________ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
