On 25/04/2009, Tobias Schlitt <t...@ez.no> wrote: > Hi all, > > > On 04/24/2009 11:17 PM Frederik Holljen wrote: > > On 24/04/2009, Tobias Schlitt <t...@ez.no> wrote: > > >> On 04/24/2009 09:10 PM Frederik Holljen wrote: > > > >> Yes. Let me elaborate a bit more: The problem with the decorator > >> (ezcPersistentIdentitySession) is, that it is not "instanceof > >> compatible" with ezcPersistentSession. This is especially a problem in > >> ezcPersistentSessionInstance (the signleton/registry class for the > >> sessions). > >> > >> Therefore my proposal was to introduce a new interface, which will be > >> implemented by both ezcPersistentSession and > >> ezcPersistentIdentitySession (and possible later decorators to these). > >> For this interface I proposed the name ezcPersistentObjectSession. > > > Right, looking at the source I can see that IdentitySession doesn't > > inherit anything at the moment adding the interface will solve your > > problems. > > > > Why not name the decorator something with decorator. This clearly > > signals the intentions of the class for people who know what a > > decorator is. Others will be taught the difference :) > > > I propose: > > ezcPersistentSessionBase or Definition for the interface > > ezcPersistentSessionIdentityDecorator for the decorator > > > Somewhat longer but more descriptive and you'll only write it once > anyway... > > > I agree with ezcPersistentSessionIdentityDecorator, that sounds good. > However, ezcPersistentSessionBase sounds like an abstract class not like > an interface. I agree. What about my other suggestion ezcPersistentSessionDefinition? I really don't like the idea to name a class something with object. It messes with the OO definitions.. it's a class, not an object. Another option is to use foundation: ezcPersistentSessionFoundation
Cheers, Frederik -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
