Yup your rigth B & J, that's was really a heedless commit (copy & paste == evil!!)
Cheers Gerhard >-----Original Message----- >From: Paul Hammant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:44 PM >To: Avalon Developers List >Subject: Re: cvs commit: >jakarta-avalon-cornerstone/apps/db/src/java/org/apache/avalon/db/functio >ns Function.java > > >Berin & Jeremias, > >Yup your right. It's my fault reeally. Our abstract parent class should >extends AbstractLogEnabled and the pure function interface will extend >nothing. > >Regards, > >- Paul H > >>> Is it a good idea to extend a work interface from a life cycle >>> interface like >>> LogEnabled? Doesn't this break the idea of "Separation of Concerns" or >>> something like that? I can't say that I understood everthing about >>> Avalon, yet. Still learning... But this struck me as odd. Would someone >>> be so kind as to enlighten me? Thanks a lot. >> >> >> >> You are correct. LogEnabled is an implementation detail, and not part >> of the >> Role of the Component. >> > > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
