Alexei Fedotov wrote:
Well, I would say it was pretty well formatted.
The thing I don't like about this class is a mess of different
security applications which cannot be deducted from naming. The class
would be easier to understand if split into four appropriately named
actions. This would also help renaming arg1, arg2 fields into
something readable.
I raise a JIRA[1], and attach a simple patch to rename field arg1 to
target and arg2 to defaultAnswer as my understanding. I also add four
factory methods to help create PriviAction instance. I think there are
too many constructors that are confused, so the next step is hide them
by marking to private. What do you think? Any suggestions/comments?
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Kevin Zhou <[email protected]> wrote:
Is this PriviAction really an ugly class?
--
Best Regards,
Regis.
