--- Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip>
This sounds like a good idea to me. I generally avoid Properties in favor of Maps in external interfaces but the casting really is a pain. Properties is a Map so you could store any old object in there anyways. David > Now, then: This whole thread started as a different question and was > motivated by an earlier question. Assuming that we continue to use > Digester to instantiate and populate ActionConfig objects, I would > like to add a "generic" mapped property to ActionConfig so that > rather than writing trivial and boring subclasses of ActionConfig, > one can simply set properties on it. I'd make it a Properties > because I'd expect it to have strings, but I would accept arguments > to make it a map instead with the idea that later other Objects might > get in there. (Ugh, but all that casting!) > Assuming no one objects > in the next day or two, I'll assume it's ok, and I'll call it > "props", just because I would rather not screw around waiting for > another name. > > The motivation for this was a perceived flaw in the ChainAction and > chain DispatchAction classes which won't know in which catalog to > look for the command either one is supposed to execute. A generic > property map would allow the ChainAction to define the name of the > properties it wants for its configuration, rather than requiring that > its ActionConfig implement some specific interface just to get one > more property in. > > Joe > > -- > Joe Germuska > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blog.germuska.com > "Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
