Hi,
On 2/14/07, Nicolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Instead of:
interface VisitablePersistenceManager implements Persistencemanager
I think you meant:
interface VisitablePersistenceManager extends Persistencemanager
Am I correct?
Yep, my mistake.
However, I would propose to decouple the Visitable interface from
PersistenceManager: visitor pattern are quite common so some other extension
will need it later. The interface would become:
interface VisitableItemStateCollection
I think it is more generic and clearer.
A visitable persistence manager would implement two interfaces:
PersistenceManager and VisitableItemStateCollection. Do you agree?
Agreed, good point.
BTW in which package should the interface be located?
It's not directly related to persistence managers, so o.a.j.core.state
along with the other ItemState stuff would be best.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
