Hey Kito -
Thanks again for looking at this. So regarding the
BehaviorHolder/ClientBehaviorHolder, the reason why I moved this over to
ClientBehaviorHolder is because the two methods that actually deal with
Behaviors really do want ClientBehaviors, not just any Behaviors. These
methods are:
public void addClientBehavior(String eventName, ClientBehavior behavior);
Note that this method is "event" specific - ie. it is implied that you are
attaching a behavior to a specific client-side event for the purpose of
providing a script for that event, so this really expects ClientBehavior,
not just any Behavior.
Ah, I see.
And:
public Map<String, List<ClientBehavior>> getClientBehaviors();
This method returns the mappings between event names and ClientBehaviors.
So again, this is very event/client-specific. As such, I prefer not go
with ClientBehaviorHolder rather than parameterize this type.
Ok. Fair enough. Sounds good, then.
BTW - the current status on the refactoring, after discussing this with Ed
and Roger - I am planning to merge at 6PM EST. So if anyone objects to this
last minute refactoring, please speak up.
Martin -
I would still like to hear confirmation from you that this addresses your
concerns. I'll definitely sleep better knowing this. :-)
Andy
Kito Mann wrote On 3/12/2009 3:42 PM ET:
Andy,
>
> In general, +1. I wonder, however, if ClienyBehaviorHolder shouldn't be
> BehaviorHolder<? extends Behavior>.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
http://www.jsfcentral.com
>
http://www.Virtua.com
>
>
>