Ok, I agree with all of you, for now Roger solution may be a solution for current o next minor version and we can discuss the common base class and interfaces for the next version or big version.
On dom, 2011-08-14 at 13:21 +0700, Chris Bartlett wrote: > On 14 August 2011 04:27, DreamTangerine <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK, I see your point of view and maybe you are right with > > List/Table/Tree views (I need to think more about it), but in the case > > of text components, here are my points : > > > > * Three classes with the word "Text" that are also "Component", seem > > like share a lot of functionality and need a common class. > > I agree. :) > > I am not saying that the TextXXX Components do not have shared > functionality that could be refactored into a base class. In fact > that may turn out be the most effective or preferable way of achieving > at least part of Roger's idea, but I think some investigation needs to > be done first to weigh up the pros and cons. > > Things might become more complicated due to the Components > functionality being split between the Component (and superclasses) and > its Skin (and superclasses), and the fact that Skins can be swapped > out in any Pivot implementation. In fact it might be the case that > any common functionality would exist in the skin class hierarchy > rather than the Component class hierarchy. Of course skins are just > classes too, so could have shared functionality extracted into a > superclass, but I with the current class hierarchy that might be > disruptive. Again, it is just something that needs investigation and > consideration. > > This is actually similar to something that I have been meaning to > investigate and discuss for a while, but I won't do into detail now so > as not to take the discussion off topic. > > > I didn't make this clear in my earlier email, but if a common base > class was introduced for these TextXXX Components, the classes would > also most likely explicitly implement the proposed interface, so how > the interface functionality was achieved becomes (rightfully) > irrelevant to the consumer of these classes. > > Chris >
