[BBB-DEV] re: Re: org.jdesktop.beansbinding.Property should be interface

[Kevin Day <kevin@trumpetinc.com>]

I also think the conversation should include whether Validator has any place in a binding chain...  I personally think that validation is a separate concern.

 

- K

----------------------- Original Message -----------------------

  

From: Peter Levart <peter.levart@marand.si>

To: dev@betterbeansbinding.kenai.com

Cc: Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giudici@tidalwave.it>, Kevin Day <kevin@trumpetinc.com>

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:04:07 +0200

Subject: [BBB-DEV] Re: org.jdesktop.beansbinding.Property should be interface

  

On Thursday 16 July 2009 14:51:50 Fabrizio Giudici wrote:
> 2. Meanwhile, I seem to understand that Peter could start writing some code.
> 3. So, I could create a branch where Property is an interface (and the
> other needed fixes to make it working), where Peter could add his stuff.

It's no rush. I'm taking a vacation from tommorow on and will be back to work in 14 days.

But, the move from abstract class to interface (+ abstract base class?) need not be driven by my Property Factories experiment only. It may open other possibilities of Property class composition that are a no-go while Property is abstract class.

If the decission is to make this binary-incompatible change, it might be good to consider other such changes that brake binary compatibility and do them all together in one move. The candidates for abstract class -> interface transition are also: Validator & Converter.

Peter