DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14054>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14054 Rename "Application" components to "Module" ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-10-30 14:19 ------- The superclass approach isn't a good approach, since it doesn't let me create ApplicationConfig objects from ModuleConfig. I looked through martin Fowlers "Refactoring" book, but it didn't help. The best way to go is using composition, the original plan, which will do this. It lets a ModuleConfig object be created from a ApplicationConfig object and a ApplicationConfig object from a ModuleConfig object. However, I am asking for --- ONE BIG EXCEPTION --- to the deprecation rule. To use composition I would like to delete the protected fields in the ApplicationConfig object. I see now why Craig likes to make fields private first and if someone has a good reason why not! Also I would like to make all the fields in ModuleConfig private ! If we ever go to other schemes for implementing ModuleConfigs this will make life much easier. We may want to use interfaces then (2.0) and going from a class with all private fields will be much easier ! This apporach will even allow all the protected fields in ActionConfig and other classes to remain unchanged. Is there a better suggestion, other than waiting till 2.0 ;-) ! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:struts-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
