Hi Aidan, Yep I can understand what you are saying. I was mostly concentrated on making more simpler thing to add new commands. My approach is good when we go for new commands.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > > so, as I was attempting to say just then, I've had a quick look at > your code and it looks pretty good. I would probably be tempted to add > functionality by object type rather than command type, putting methods > into the Command interface for listing, getting info etc and then > subclassing that for Queues, Exchanges and so on. That way you only > have to edit one file when you add a new type Yep but that is only with a single command. If we are going to add some more methods to the interactive mode it's going to be difficult. But if we are not going to add more and more commands that approach would be useful. What do you thing if you want me to implement in other way around I will go ahead with that. > and it's clearer what > you need to implement when adding support for a new object. > > I haven't had a chance to actually run it yet, I'll do that later today. > > it was good talking to you, I hope next time we'll be able to hear > each other properly! :) yeah sure and you know English is not my mother tongue and your accent is not very much clear for me. I'm very sorry for that next time I will be able to hear you. And if you are feel free to call me on a week end I you can call me to my home land line and I will be able to hear you clearly. Any thoughts Thanks Lahiru > > > - Aidan > > -- > aim/y!:aidans42 g:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/ > "We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to > each other." >
