Ralph Goers wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I can agree that it seem to break some common ideas about good coding practice. But we have been through the arguments and it seem OK. We probably find out if it works when we start to implement and integrate it.
Oh yes, sure. I totally agree with the concept. It's not a factory and it's not an object holder as depending on the implementation it can be either or even something else. So accessor is fine!
Sylvain
Did this accessor thing evolve from another discussion? It seemed to pop up out of thin air in this thread.
It did, I had thought a little bit more about what to call them and wanted to tell, Sylvain decreased the confussion by changing the thread name.
Is this what I hope it means? If it is, then I hope to see classes like Request, Session, Context, etc. be modified to implement the interface. To me, this would mean that they implement a static get method that returns the appropriate instance of the object. Perhaps a better name for this would be Accessible. I guess your plan is to implement a separate Accessor class to do this instead?
I'm not geting what your aim at, could you tell a little bit about how you want to use the accessores so that I can understand why you prefer such a solution compared to the component based approach that we have discussed.
/Daniel
