I'm not sure what you mean by dynamic proxy. Could you give more info.
-- Allen
Anil Gangolli wrote:
Just a quick note, and I admit I haven't followed the latest
discussion, but if the wrappers are merely restrictions by a specified
interface, it seems like a single dynamic proxy could implement all of
them.
--a.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Gilliland"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: velocity context cleanup
agreed. so the convention will be ...
org.roller.presentation.velocity.wrappers.<POJO Class>Wrapper
will act as a wrapper class for a <POJO Class> normally found in
org.roller.pojos
-- Allen
Lance Lavandowska wrote:
Ooops, you caught me not paying sufficient attention, even whilst I
was typing out the package name! Hmm, I think I like o.r.p.v.wrappers
better, less confusion with the "real" "pojos".
On 7/5/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i can do that, but org.roller.presentation.velocity.pojos *is* a new
sub-package. maybe org.roller.presentation.velocity.wrappers would be
more clear?
-- Allen
Lance Lavandowska wrote:
Just one suggestion, put the wrappers in a sub-package, perhaps
org.roller.presentation.velocity.pojos.wrappers ?
