Re: [Tm4j-developers] some thoughts of TopicMapCopier

[Norbert H. <rue...@se...>]

Kal Ahmed wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> At 11:18 28/09/2001 +0200, Norbert Hartl wrote:
> 
>> this is a strange email. From whom are those interim quotes?
>> I can only recognize quotes to my mail and then on top
>> there are kals quotes. Who is this in between? :))
> 
> 
> Thats Gerd Mueller, developer of the Ozone back-end
> 
> 

Yes I know :) I just got your reply to Gerds mail earlier
than Gerds mail itself.


>>
>> - which interfaces would be changed?
>> - where is the copy implementation?
> 
> 
> OK. This is where I think we are. There are thre approaches to copying 
> currenlty on the table
> 
> 1) The back-end independent copier object method - as represented by 
> TopicMapCopier
> 2) Norbert's suggestion that copy() functions be implemented as part of 
> the interfaces of TopicMapObject and derived classes
> 3) Gerd's suggestion that copy() functions be implemented as part of the 
> interface of TopicMapFactory
> 

Just to stress this point enough. Every solution has to be 
backend-independent.
It is (without any doubt) a good idea to prefer (3). I like the idea because
inside a copy method the create..() methods are needed. And the Factory 
is the
place where they reside.
Should we put the copy implementation in the TopicMapFactory. This will 
change
TopicMapFactory to an abstract class. If we don't like this idea we should
have a further look at (1).


NoB