On Saturday 27 December 2008 2:49:22 am Nathan Nobbe wrote: > > Thanks, Nathan. Unfortunately, what you describe is impossible. It > > requires > > me to know all the possible decorators ahead of time and implement the > > interface for each in each decorator, at which point I've gotten no > > benefit at > > all over just putting everything in the original base class in the first > > place. > > That defeats the purpose of decorators if I can't come up with a new one > > a month from now and not have to modify any of the existing code. > > i see it more on a need-to-expose basis. for example, why not, when > presented w/ the current problem, just expose, Baz::doThings() now, b/c you > know you need it in Baz instances ? later if you find theres another > method thats in Bar that isnt yet exposed, you just go in and add a similar > wrapper for it in Baz at that time. this is a typical flow in a layered > architecture in my experience; often times controllers are revised to > expose a new entry point for something on the backend that previously was > unavailble from the front end, just as an example. Because this is for a shipping application, not an in-house app where a month from now I can go back and adjust the interface for every class. (It's open source, but still has a stable release version.) I need to be able to add additional wrapping decorators *without* any modifications to the underlying object or its interfaces. As I said, the interface problem is solvable by having explicit delegating methods in the base decorator class and then only using __call() for nested decorators, which will be a much much smaller portion of the time. It's the performance cost of __call() and the extra call stack layers that are my concern at the moment. -- Larry Garfield larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
