... unless you feel IBehavior is no longer cohesive and needs to be
abandoned for that reason, or that it, or your new "Behavior" class
itself, should become an extension of multiple smaller interfaces that
more sensibly split, group and name the full range of
responsibilities, and if you are not p
Vote is now closed with 4 binding +1 votes. I will work on implementing this
soon.
-igor
On Nov 26, 2010 11:47 AM, "Martin Grigorov" wrote:
+1
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Johan Compagner wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 03:22, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
> > the ib...
+1
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Johan Compagner wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 03:22, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
> > the ibehavior interface has become somewhat cluttered and a lot of
> > methods in it can have a nice default implementation that works for
> > 99% of the usecases. there
+1
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 03:22, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> the ibehavior interface has become somewhat cluttered and a lot of
> methods in it can have a nice default implementation that works for
> 99% of the usecases. there is no longer a point to having it as an
> interface. this vote is to
>
> -
Ok, I need sleep. Back to our regularly-scheduled programming.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>> If you're going to make it an abstract class, why not change the name,
>> too? The "I" presumably means "interfa
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> If you're going to make it an abstract class, why not change the name,
> too? The "I" presumably means "interface", right?
Uh, I think that's what he meant when he said:
this vote is to
- rename IBehavior to Behavior and mak
If you're going to make it an abstract class, why not change the name,
too? The "I" presumably means "interface", right?
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Matej Knopp wrote:
> +1
>
> -Matej
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010
+1
-Matej
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> +1
>
> -igor
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
>> the ibehavior interface has become somewhat cluttered and a lot of
>> methods in it can have a nice default implementation that works for
>> 99% of the
+1
-igor
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> the ibehavior interface has become somewhat cluttered and a lot of
> methods in it can have a nice default implementation that works for
> 99% of the usecases. there is no longer a point to having it as an
> interface. this vote is
the ibehavior interface has become somewhat cluttered and a lot of
methods in it can have a nice default implementation that works for
99% of the usecases. there is no longer a point to having it as an
interface. this vote is to
- rename IBehavior to Behavior and make it an abstract class with
stu
10 matches
Mail list logo
