Re: [smartweb-devel] Static sign on auth module less understandable

[Roberto Lo G. <rlo...@sm...>]

Ok, I understood your point, but I hope you agree with me if I state
the difference between the two examples is not on API powerness or
flexibility but on ease of comprehension....

2007/11/9, Pino Contartese <gco...@gm...>:
>
> Ok better express the proposal reproposing a real case
> I have to check that the user is logged in or not and I write:
> If (net.smartlab.web.auth.User.get ()! = null) (
> ...
> It doesn't seem so friendly ..it was better for me to use it with antoher
> sign like I suggest before
> net.smartlab.web.auth.User.getCurrent() !=null
>
> Do you agree with me ?
>
>
> Roberto Lo Giacco wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean auth module with the statement form auth?
> > In case I understood correctly I think this could be a minor change into
> > the auth module API but I'm not sure what the advantages will be... can
> > you provide any reason for the change?
> >
> >
> > Pino Contartese wrote:
> >>
> >> Uhmm ...
> >> Hi Stephen,I start to use  the form auth and I have noticed that the
> >> signature of static method User.get () is a little understandable. It
> >> would be more understandable User.getCurrent ()?
> >> I expect a response from everyone on ..
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Static-sign-on-auth-module-less-understandable-tf4774615s17546.html#a13667696
> Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> smartweb-devel mailing list
> sma...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/smartweb-devel
>