Yeah, exactly, but createFault() confused me a bit. I don't really se
a place for it. I understand these two proposals, what's the third
(complete) proposal?
1. the original one which Claus seemed to not like, dunno why.
Message getOut();
void setOut(Message out);
boolean hasFault();
void setFault();
(setFault() does not need a boolean arg, as an fault cannot become an
out, I think. setOut() would reset the fault flag)
2.
Message getOut();
void setOut(Message out);
Message getFault();
void setFault(Message fault);
Am I missing something?
Hadrian
On Jul 9, 2009, at 1:07 PM, James Strachan wrote:
2009/7/9 Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>:
@James, yes it would, but why have createFault()? Why not have it
closer to
what it is now with
Message getFault();
void setFault(Message fault); // instead of create fault
(and then we won't need the setFault(boolean);)
As we're musing about having a single property called "out" which may
be marked as a fault or not.
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
