On 3/30/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well, however you fix it, imho the way it is now is broken.
No that's reversing it. It was truly broken, as it wasn't called at
all (in fact I committed the check on isEnabled just a couple of days
ago). Your concern is that it still not may
well, however you fix it, imho the way it is now is broken.
-igor
On 3/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seemed a bit odd to me to punish our users with multiple calls
because of something we didn't design well in the first place. Typical
case of where we should have provid
It seemed a bit odd to me to punish our users with multiple calls
because of something we didn't design well in the first place. Typical
case of where we should have provided an empty template method. It
would have my preference to fix that rather than doing the isEnabled
call twice.
Eelco
On 3
i think you should leave the isenabled check. isbehavioraccepted does it,
sure. but as users override it, will they remember to call super? its not in
javadoc and is not enforced. and if they do not call super they can override
what is behavior's choice not the components.
-igor
On 3/29/07, [EM
