On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Peter Reilly wrote:
On 9/5/07, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Benson wrote:
Great diagnosis, Stefan. I will revert the changes to
<equals> tomorrow. Does anyone object to a new
<objectsequal> task?
we can change <equals> to compare objects, just bind it to the new
ObjectsEqual condition...
No we cannot!
I was about to suggest this, but then I remembered the binding
is done by reflection in the ConditionBase class.
Peter
I'm coming in late, I'd like to follow what is going on, but I didn't
find any obvious place that described the new feature that was
motivating the original change. How exactly would you use this new
object comparison feature and what would it accomplish? Could have a
base class that could take a strategy and use it as the base for
Equals, IsGreaterThan, etc? Mapping to objectequals does seem
undesirable from a user perspective if it is a superset of the
capabilities of the existing equals task.
Also, might be good to run CLIRR, jdiff or similar to detect any
other api changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
