Geoff Howard wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Thanks Reinhard for the link. Ehm, from what I see there, there is no need/deeper meaning for moving to Resettable. Or did I oversee something?
Well, this message implies that the plan was to use reflection to provide back-compatibility with recycle()
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103287310702103&w=2
Don't know if that happened or if it's a good way to go, but that's a clue. I'm assuming 2.2 still doesn't compile much less run or we could just check this.
Yes, I read this - but it doesn't say anything about Resettable. If reflection is used it only means that I can implement "recycle" without
using the interface.
Ah, I got mixed up by the Resettable/Recyclable type in that message.
Geoff
