I'm not against wrapping an array. My concern with the current approach is
that it exposes all lot of not needed methods that replacements will have
to implement. Simply implementing iterator would be better then deriving
from arrayobject. At least when the actual class is being passed around
rather then an interface such as iterator.
Sent from my HTC one X.
On 8 Aug, 2013 4:04 PM, "James HK" <jamesin.hongkon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ArrayAccessor is used in several classes[1] to conveniently access an
> array through object methods. Of course one could make use of the
> ArrayObject directly but one would need to implement the expectation
> handling individually for when an expected element is not accessible.
>
> Accessing an array "blindly" by the means of checking things manually
> like if ( isset( array[$key]) && ... ) {} where ArrayAccessor or
> ArrayObject allows to focus on the task of accessing a value
> $this->has( $key ), $this->get( $key ) instead of checking its
> validity and later try to gain access.
>
> I'm not a fan of having something like array( 'beAKey' => 'beAValue' )
> being transferred beyond an object that invokes the array. An array
> that communicates to the outside of its own instantiation should be
> encapsulate in an object that carries the array.
>
> >> And when one does not need it, it is better to not have it, and stick
> with the simplest implementation possible.
>
> If we don't want to use ArrayObject, I might have to create a similar
> object handler, as I said before doing array( 'key' => 'value' ) by
> "hand" creates all sorts of problems which starts with the validation,
> raising exception, and retrieving of its value.
>
> >> The get method of this class is throwing an InvalidArgumentException
> Fair enough.
>
> [1] Settings, MockObjectBuilder, Collector, ApiRequestParameterFormatter
>
> Cheers
>
> On 8/8/13, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroended...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > I'm not sure what the use for the newly introduced ArrayAccessor class
> is.
> > It seems to not be providing a lot of functionality on top of
> ArrayObject.
> > And I found that one rarely actually needs the functionality ArrayObject
> > provides. And when one does not need it, it is better to not have it, and
> > stick with the simplest implementation possible.
> >
> > The get method of this class is throwing an InvalidArgumentException
> when a
> > non-existing element is requested. This is wrong, as the provided
> argument
> > is not invalid. An OutOfBoundsException would work.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Jeroen De Dauw
> > http://www.bn2vs.com
> > Don't panic. Don't be evil. ~=[,,_,,]:3
> > --
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
