SignAssertions action not needed ?

[Cantor, Scott]

On 2/6/14, 2:29 PM, "Brent Putman" <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:

>Theoretically I suppose.  I'd like to see a realistic example though.
>See below, but: We changed them to simple bean classes because doing
>anything else implies having to handle exceptions and failures in odd
>places in code that otherwise just wants to call "Foo getFoo()" and
>expect to get back either a Foo or null, like a data holding bean.  Doing
>late binding, resolution, etc complicates all that.

Ok. That wasn't clear to me from the code as a specific goal. I tend to
not be able to tell what the actual Java contract is meant to be because
of all the null vs nonnull issues, the use of RuntimeExceptions, etc.

>Well, perhaps it's gotten lost in all this but:  That is exactly what we
>originally had: one set of interfaces called -Configuration.  Those were
>supposed to be "smart" and could or would do resolution, lookup, etc when
>they were called.  We split them for the reason above, amongst others.

I never followed the design at that point, I was off in my half.

>Also: a given -Configuration/-Parameter pair right now looks identical,
>because I literally did the aforementioned split, and nothing else,
>didn't change anything else really at the time.  The goal was just to get
>nailed down the -Parameters API that runtime components consume, but the
>-Configuration(s) may still need some tweaking. It's not clear that in
>the end they are going to remain exactly the way they are.  That is part
>of the TBD work.

Ok, also a key point.

-- Scott