On Aug 16, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
> I'm with Guido insofar as he says "it's not good practice" (and
> _not_ with him on the part where he does it anyway ;) ). Type is
> good. The validator just turns off when you bind values into and
> out of an NSMutableDictionary. You are going to have to bind to
> that object all over the place -- in the item ref, in anything
> inside the repetition that uses it, in any action methods that act
> upon it. So you're either going to be casting in your Java code
> for action methods, or you're going to just give up type checking
> in your WOD. Even if you just make a public field, it's better
> than dumping into a dictionary. The validator can then check your
> references, completion works for you, the compiler can type check
> in your action methods, you can refactor (though WOD doesn't
> support refactoring yet, it will one of these days).
>
> While I agree that less code is usually a good thing, I would go
> for "say as little as possible without saying too little", and
> while I know Chuck may hate me for it, type is good.
Better sit down. I agree with you. :-) Though not so much for
"type is good" but "API is good". Having all this in a dictionary
hides the API. The binding validation is a valuable side effect ;-)
and this _is_ Java so you might as well benefit from the type system.
Chuck
> On Aug 16, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
>
>> On 16.08.2007, at 08:59, David Avendasora wrote:
>>
>>> This idea intrigues me. Can you explain further? Would this be a
>>> good "Best Practice" to follow?
>>
>> No, it's probably not good practice as other developers might see
>> your component and aks "What the he...?".
>>
>> It is because I'm lazy, I don't want to have tons of simple things
>> lying around in my classes (the less code the better) and that's it.
>>
>> For the usage:
>>
>> I have an NSMutableDictionary called "dynamicBindings" on the
>> superclass of all my components. I use it mostly for the "item"
>> binding in repetitions, but also, when I calculate strings or
>> other values somewhere and only use them to display them somewhere
>> in the HTML. There are tons of different usage scenarios, if your
>> comfortable with Key-Value-Coding, you'll get used to some of them
>> and will use them. Or not. Or whatever.
>>
>> cug
>
>
>
--Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Aug 16 2007 - 13:06:51 EDT