> -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 July 2004 13:50 > To: James Developers List > Subject: RE: User attribute support and API changes > > > > > > > I think this feels contrived, because I can't see the value > in it, but > > I could be wrong. > > I was confused by the name, "AttributeSupport" and initially > thought "AttributeManager" better described an object which > managed a set of attributes. Ah. OK. My intention is to provide a common access method for all attributes on any object that requires them. Therefore I think that the implementing class should be totally responsible.
Thus DefaultUser implements the AttributeSupport methods. I thought about having DefaultUser and MailImpl extend the AttributeSupport class, but I'm fairly sure extending things this way would make things messy. > > However I then wondered if you were perhaps trying to say > that the object didn't necessarily manage attributes but > offered access to attribute management. That's OK. I didn't think it was clear either. That's why I wanted a discussion :) > > I guess that it depends whether we want to use polymorphism > to create collections of "AttributeSupport"'s or maintain an > other-than-one-to-one relationship between attribute > management and Objects, both or neither. It's just a consistancy thing. I want one way of refering to attributes. > > Don't reconsider your design _just_ because I was > uncomfortable with the name, we could just discuss the name. A more literal name might be AttributesSupported. > > d. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
