Re: oo design question - how to avoid a factory

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:12:35 +0100, Olivier Guilyardi <ml@xung.org> wrote: > Justin Patrin wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:49:31 +0100, Olivier Guilyardi <ml@xung.org> wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >>Justin Patrin wrote: > >> > >>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:39:36 -0500, Andrew Nagy > >>><andrew.nagy@villanova.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Could using a factory instead of a constructor be confusing to the > >>>>non-savvy user? > >> > >>Now, there may be another solution, to keep bc : In the constructor, > >>issue a warning like "Please use the factory...", and then act as > >>a decorator to the real datagrid. This is very possible because the > >>Structures_DataGrid class is currently an almost empty wrapper. > >> > >>One may say that it's heavy, but it's not for the one who directly use > >>the factory. All of this workaround will only create a bit of overhead for > >>people who didn't RTFM recently, but will keep bc. And it could be wiped > >>out in some future major release. > >> > >>What do you all think about this idea ? Is it an acceptable trick ? > > > > > > Well, it would include lots of extra code by default and be useless to > > those who read the docs. If Structures_DataGrid has yet to go stable > > BC breaks are ok. You should put a large statement in the changelog > > which tells the user that there are BC breaks. If their apps fail, > > they can ask on the list and be redirected to the docs. > > > > I say don't put in the large ugly hack. It will just make support harder. > > I agree you. But, better than "a large statement in the changelog", what about > the pear installer issueing warnings/asking questions at install time ? This > would be similar to the famous debian's dpkg and could be achieved by a > new <warning> tag in package.xml and/or pre/post-install scripts. > Sounds like a good feature to me. However, such BC breaks should only happen in pre 1.0 packages.... -- Justin Patrin