Like BSP + BSPBase
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Thomas Jungblut wrote:
> Looks reasonable.
>
> Another idea:
> I would not put setup and cleanup into the interface, because it is the
> BSPInterface. So it can just have the bsp method, thus removing bsp method
> from BSP class.
> However I'm not sur
Looks reasonable.
Another idea:
I would not put setup and cleanup into the interface, because it is the
BSPInterface. So it can just have the bsp method, thus removing bsp method
from BSP class.
However I'm not sure if we confuse the users with that (API docs related).
But that is really a minor c
2012/7/9 Thomas Jungblut
> Yes the naming is more than inconsistent.
> I thought we are going to add constants (for example) to the BSPInterface,
> so it isn't any more than just a marker interface.
> I would just remove the BSPInterface.
yes, that was my first thought too.
> Or is there anot
Yes the naming is more than inconsistent.
I thought we are going to add constants (for example) to the BSPInterface,
so it isn't any more than just a marker interface.
I would just remove the BSPInterface. Or is there another reason for it to
be empty/existing?
2012/7/9 Tommaso Teofili
> Hi all,
