Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #22596, comment 19


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2023-11-16T20:39:24+01:00 (2 years ago)
Author:
hhtznr

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #22596, comment 19

    initial v1  
    11Replying to [comment:17 taylor.smock]:
    22> Replying to [comment:13 hhtznr]:
    3 > > Did you ever consider this proposal/patch?
    4 >
    5 > I forget stuff. And sometimes more important things come up. Like fixing CI issues.
    6 >
    7 > If a patch doesn't have a response after two weeks, ping it (and cc me in the ticket if I'm not already involved). And keep pinging until someone (probably me) responds.
    8 >
    93> Anyway, as I noted in comment:6, the authentication information can be obtained via oauth 2. JOSM has support for oauth 2. I would ''strongly'' prefer to use that support.
    104
    … …  
    4438
    4539Can you give me a few hints how to resolve this? Is there a more elegant third way that I just don't see?
    46 
    47 >
    48 > Beyond that, I'm not a fan of the singleton instance for `HgtReader`. In most cases, if you "need" a singleton, you can get away with `static` methods. There are a few exceptions. In this case, I think the exception is for having multiple instances with different configuration. In this case, there is only one instance of a `new` `HgtReader`; in the singleton method. I probably would have made a `private static class` for the `HgtDownloadListener` (the other possible exception).
    49 >
    50 > I'll try to find time to take a deeper look this week.