On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Mortagne wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> tmortagne (SVN) wrote: >>>> Author: tmortagne >>>> Date: 2008-10-07 20:01:06 +0200 (Tue, 07 Oct 2008) >>>> New Revision: 13383 >>>> >>>> Modified: >>>> >>>> platform/core/trunk/xwiki-rendering/src/main/java/org/xwiki/rendering/parser/SyntaxType.java >>>> Log: >>>> XWIKI-2744: Can't add a Parser component for an unknown syntax >>>> * add equals and hashCode methods >>>> >>> Since these methods do nothing but the default, why do we need to >>> override them? The inherited methods should be enough, no? >> >> To explicitly indicate SyntaxType can be used as Map key. > > WDYM? A map can hold anything, there's no requirement to override > equals/hashCode. If they do exactly what Object does, there's no need to > override, since the behavior is the same. > >>> Anyway, I'd rather have a real implementation, since we can't be sure >>> that everybody will create syntaxes using the factory method. >> >> The constructor is private so we are sure everyone will have to use >> the factory to create SyntaxType. >> > > How does this go with distributed containers, distributed shared memory, > serialized objects, RMI and other ways an object can be created without > manually calling the constructor?
If those uses cases SyntaxType is far from beying used for yes there will be a problem... anyway if you think it's really needed you can modify theses methods, I'm not that strongly against the idea ;) > > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu > http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
