> From: Magesh Umasankar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > public static void dispatchAction(String action, Task target) { ... } > > > > When it can be avoided, I prefer to keep my single inheritance > > choices open. --DD > > Nice idea. I was thinking of the following:
So if I need to derive from something else that DispatchTask, I can simply implement Dispatchable and don't even need an execute method, since you've modified the introspection code too. Clever! The only small concern I have with the impl is that, unless I've misread the code, if the parameter in question is unspecified or empty (white space only), the new code as of now still executes execute(), which would do nothing silently, instead of barfing. I personally believe any dispatch task should require a valid 'action' attribute, and that having a default action reverting back to execute is counter intuitive and will lead to some confusion (and requests for help) down the line. Let me know what you think about that. Thanks, --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
