Thanks for mentioning this. Would you like to file that bug and/or submit a pull request?
Also, do you have some motivating reason for moving to a "more protocol-based property"? I understand your twitch, but am curious if you are trying to replace with another implementation? -Michal On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Kevin Hawkins < kevin.hawkins.cord...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm looking through the CDVViewController implementation details on iOS, > and I'm not clear why its (public) commandDelegate property references the > concrete implementation class of the CDVCommandDelegate protocol > (CDVCommandDelegateImpl), as opposed to defining a more generic > protocol-based property. From an object-oriented design standpoint, that's > something I didn't expect. Is there a reason that this is different than > CDVPlugin's property definition? > > It's not a super big deal, though it sets off something twitchy in my > brain. ;-) What does need to change if it stays as-is, however, is that > CDVViewController.h should be #importing CDVCommandDelegateImpl.h, not > CDVCommandDelegate.h. The way it is currently, the responsibility of the > former header's inclusion is being improperly passed on to the inheriting > view controller class. And the latter header file's inclusion is > superfluous. > > I figured I'd get thoughts before filing a bug one way or another. > > Thanks, > Kevin >
