On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Lex Spoon <sp...@google.com> wrote:
> Thoughts? The main downside I know of is the one John Tamplin has
> pointed out: if there are multiple runAsync calls within a single
> class -- as sometimes happens -- then the programmer has to code up
> some new classes that will only be used for naming. Can we live with
> that?
I think so. It's less anxiety-inducing to create a class as a moniker (even
if it's a bit artificial) rather than fret about picking a good string
literal ("will it collide?", "what naming scheme should I use?", "I wish I
hadn't used that other naming scheme in that other part of the code...should
I go fix it up right now?"). Plus, your IDE can help you create moniker
classes and, when needed, efficiently rename/refactor them.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
