Guess you guys aren't as lazy as me. I like the shorthand methods, because it is less typing with the same result. I think the mmci should be simple to develop with. This means for me that it has not too little and not too much methods in it.
When the shorthand methods are well implemented they even could make my application on top of mmbase more robust. I don't like to use methods as input for another method. The shorthand method could implement "new functionality" like error handling. I am "happy" that the current shorthand methods do not do that. What would happen when the cloud.getNodeManager(String) is not throwing an exception (It does at the moment)? Check for null? So then I have to write another line of code every time I want to use it, which will result in a code template one day to compensate the extra effort. I am really glad that it throws an Exception at the moment and that I don't have to write some silly lines. I really love it that the Exception is a BridgeException, which is a RuntimeException. It will kill my execution thread when it fails, which is very robust. Nico Klasens ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A trainstation is were a train stops a busstation is were a bus stops on my desk I have a workstation. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Pierre van Rooden Verzonden: maandag 1 september 2003 14:42 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: [MMCI1.2] org.mmbase.bridge.util Rob van Maris wrote: > If you insist on having such a method at all, it should definitely not > go in the bridge interfaces. It's allready in the interface. The methods were created at a time when the interface was still concidered a scripting interface - hence it was thought that shorthand methods would be useful. We cannot remove these methods from the bridge, as they have been in use for over two years. Obviously when adding _new_ methods we don't need to add extra shortcuts, but we cannot remove the old methods. Pierre van Rooden
