[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [udig-devel] ID use in Layer
|
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I intended to use it in an immutable fashion. My worry about adding the
> additional constructors is: Is the API flexible enough with the qualifier?
> I went the setter route because it is easier to add more properties that
> way. We can document them as being only usable during construction phase
> and even do runtime checks to ensure it. Or maybe we need a ID factory?...
>
> Maybe that one extra field is enough. I don't know. We should decide
> that.
Nope; no factory; and I am still worried about the qualifier. If we
start to have a factory we start to make the object so complicated it
is no longer useful as what it is for - an identifier to look up
stuff.
> We need to clean up out test. I don't know which ones are supposed to work
> and on which platforms. I
Well let's use javadocs for that; report what platform and so on it
passes on (and if it is a JUnit test or a JUnit Plug-in Test).
> This is a horrible hack just for layer becuase layer id is a URI not an ID
> field. So I dont really want to muddy the ID object with the hack. Layer
> is broken but the brokenness is hopefully restricted to the layer class.
Okay I will think about this; see if we can make a constructor that
takes what information LayerImpl has to offer; and fills in all the
internal fields. I can still see value in a constructor that let's you
say everything - but the value is for test cases.
>> ToString has no representation of the qualifier; could we add this to the
>> string representation and adjust the constructors to match?
>
> We can.
No worries; will think about it after the release.
Jody
