This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 48381 - DataObject should use Lookup.
Summary: DataObject should use Lookup.
Status: CLOSED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: platform
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Data Systems (show other bugs)
Version: 4.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: David Konecny
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-09-02 15:17 UTC by Tomas Zezula
Modified: 2008-12-22 17:52 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tomas Zezula 2004-09-02 15:17:11 UTC 
Currently DataObject uses CookieSet which can not
be filled on demand. In addition to this it should
be able to use Lookup to solve this performace issue.
Comment 1 Jesse Glick 2004-09-02 15:58:53 UTC 
IMHO this is invalid (and JavaDataObject should be changed in issue
#41084). The API contract in DataObject is

    public Node.Cookie getCookie(Class c);
    public static final String PROP_COOKIE = Node.PROP_COOKIE;

You can implement that however you like. In fact it is lighter-weight
than lookup because you do not need to create a separate Lookup
object. You are certainly not required to use CookieSet; it is there
only as a convenience.

(Anyway CookieSet.Factory is intended to make it possible to use
CookieSet and still compute particular cookies on demand; not sure if
this is what you mean by "fill on demand" or not.)
Comment 2 Jaroslav Tulach 2004-09-22 10:49:44 UTC 
Even I would like DataObject to have getLookup() method, certainly not
for the reasons stated in this bug. CookieSet can use the Factory and
as Jesse stated you can implement getCookie anyway you like (beyond
those mentioned for example also by delegating to your own lookup). So
closing as invalid, of course reopen if we've misunderstood something.
Comment 3 Marian Mirilovic 2005-12-20 16:04:35 UTC 
This issue was solved long time ago. Because nobody has reopened it neither
added comments, we are verifying/closing it now. 
If you are still able to reproduce the problem, please reopen. 

Thanks in advance.