On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 April 2012 16:53, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
BasicClassOrganizer has no users... Is it there for any purpose?
What about joining them?
Ehh... i was also looked at those classes couple years ago and wondered why if its really worth having so complex implementation to save few bytes of space..
I would rewrite this stuff and leave just a Categorizer with clean protocol and structure:
yes - categorizer holds categories (order could be important, but i would
just keep it unspecified , i.e,
yes. I was working in a simple version having #sort:, #sortAlphabetically, #sortByAmmountOfElements
instead OrderedCollection ( categoryName -> {.. category items .. } )
I would use Dictionary #categoryName -> Set(items)
I'd like having a Category object there.
this class should serve basic operations like adding /removing and queries: - what is a categor(ies) of element (if element can be include only into single category at once) - what are category names - what are elements of specific category.. Period. And it actually can serve as a general categorizer (not just for classes/packages).
but then we have to put the changes announcements/notifications in another place
The way how BasicClassOrganizer using inheritance is abuse.. since it extends a clean concept (Categorizer) with unrelated stuff, like classComment and commentStamp.
Ok, you are making me open an issue to move those to class :). 1.5?
Class organizer, should instead delegate, or even better, Class should use two different fields for categories and class comment.. but not mixing everything into one pile of mess.
Guille
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.