Ok, let's go for it then. Who's taking it up? Eelco
On 6/5/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm definitely +1 for metadata. The thread locals are clumsy and extremely dangerous. -Matej On 6/5/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > But i also need it for other stuff that are specific to specific > > > implementations of certain things > > > for example the AccessStackStore doesn't need such a thread locale but > > SLC > > > does.. > > > > Fair enough. So you would use such a 'bag' in request cycle to store > > stuff like dirtyObjects (session)? Aren't you afraid this will open up > > a new can of worms (users misusing this facility rather then providing > > their own request cycle implementation for instance)? > > > > Isn't that the problem we also should then have on Session or Component? > And i don't see it miss used a lot (at least all the examples i get from > people here on the lists/web) > also don't think that will happen a lot because most people (you and me > included!) like > to have a simple get/setter. But the problem is that we as the framework > just can't do that > for specific/default implementations of stuff. Then Requestcycle would > become polluted. > > The nice thing about metadata is (compare to a pure put/get like hashmap) > then they can be generified > so with java5 you don't have to cast >
