On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 10:28:24AM +0200, Max M wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I agree, it's a good way to do it. I do think a name more unique then refresh is good though, because then you can simply traverse the hierarchy and call the upgrade method if it exists.
It would be nice to do this in a more interactive way. Like a small updater product (in Z2) wich could work like the following ascii art:
Sorry, I disagree. You might have seveal thousand objects. So interactivity makes no sense. Back to what I wanted: To make it more easy to read other peoples code, I think it would be nice to agree on a common method name for upgrades/refreshes. I like the name "updateObject". I think it is enough to agree on a method name, no need to create an Interface. thomas -- Thomas Guettler <guettli@thomas-guettler.de> http://www.thomas-guettler.de