[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation
From: |
David Brownell |
Subject: |
Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Dec 2001 20:16:03 -0800 |
Isn't the point that the "activation" code should be used directly
to process mailcaps? As a rule, one doesn't want javax.* code
to depend on any other package that's not called out by the API
specs (e.g. java.* is OK, neither sun.* nor gnu.* would be).
- Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Selkirk" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Activation implementation
> On December 3, 2001 04:41 am, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> > If you're referring to the parsing stuff that was me. You abstraction
> > didn't actually bring anything and was broken. I fixed it by putting an FSM
> > directly into the classes. Personally, I don't think it makes the classes
> > more difficult to read.
>
> That is exactly my point. There is an FSM directly in the class. That is a
> logical pattern that can easily be pulled out, especially due to it's size
> (sure it's not large, but it is significant). The benefit of OOP is that
> every component has it's logical piece that are used to build larger pieces.
> I'm a huge believer of small and simple encapsulations. And also, by pulling
> it out into a separate class, other projects could reuse it for processing
> mailcap's.
>
> I am working on finishing JAF and there is still pieces missing in the
> functionality which I'm addressing. I was just checking if there was any
> major reasons for the FSM being in there.
>
> Andrew...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classpathx-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpathx-discuss