true, unfortunately the jvm does not yet have a method to turn off
silly code. When it does suddenly a whole lot of application won't run
anymore ;)
Maurice
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that would be silly code :)
>
> But i dont mind to much, i ju
that would be silly code :)
But i dont mind to much, i just kept the null check to be sure.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you could still do add((IBehavior[])null) so the null check needs to stay.
>
> Maurice
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Ig
you could still do add((IBehavior[])null) so the null check needs to stay.
Maurice
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is check on component:935 needed? can behaviors array ever be null?
> add((ibehavior)null) will give you ibehavior[]{null} no?
>
> -igor
is check on component:935 needed? can behaviors array ever be null?
add((ibehavior)null) will give you ibehavior[]{null} no?
-igor
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok i committed it
> Let see how this works then.
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:14 A
ok i committed it
Let see how this works then.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I ask the same question on the meeting and there they pretty much all
> said why not..
>
> So
> add(Component... child)
> add(IBehavior... behavior)
> add(IValidator... va
yes i meant as a replacement
not an addition
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> then can we get rid of add(Component), add(IBehavior), etc ?
>
> -igor
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I ask the same q
then can we get rid of add(Component), add(IBehavior), etc ?
-igor
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I ask the same question on the meeting and there they pretty much all
> said why not..
>
> So
> add(Component... child)
> add(IBehavior... behavior
+1 nb
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It doesn't break API, just binary compatibility. Should just be a
> recompile then... I'm not sure if it will be used much, but it doesn't
> add bloat and doesn't create wrong impressions. For those that do like
Would also make sense to make
MarkupContainer#addOrReplace(Component... child)
Tim
On Apr 12, 2008, at 4:14 AM, Johan Compagner wrote:
I ask the same question on the meeting and there they pretty much all
said why not..
So
add(Component... child)
add(IBehavior... behavior)
add(IValidator...
It doesn't break API, just binary compatibility. Should just be a
recompile then... I'm not sure if it will be used much, but it doesn't
add bloat and doesn't create wrong impressions. For those that do like
to work this way it adds the feature without bothering those that
don't.
+1
Martijn
On 4
Can't see why not
Frank
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I ask the same question on the meeting and there they pretty much all
> said why not..
>
> So
> add(Component... child)
> add(IBehavior... behavior)
> add(IValidator... validator)
>
> Joha
I ask the same question on the meeting and there they pretty much all
said why not..
So
add(Component... child)
add(IBehavior... behavior)
add(IValidator... validator)
Johan
12 matches
Mail list logo
