On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:46, Paul Hammant wrote:
> >The application startup method would accept a ApplicationEvent object
> > (that had a method to return the SarMetaData).
> >
> >The applicationFailed() method (or whatever it was called) would then
> > accept an exception and that would be the cause of application failure.
> >
> >Other events would have 0 parrameters.
>
> ApplicationEvent
> {
> SarMetaData getSarMetaData();
> }
>
> BlockListener
> {
> // as before plus ....
> void applicationStarting();
lets make this one capable of throwing an exception - maybe
ApplicationUnavailableException or UnavailableApplicationException or maybe
even a vanilla Exception.
> void applicationStarted(ApplicationEvent applicationEvent);
> void applicationStopping();
> void applicationStopped();
> void applicationFailure(Exception causeOfFailure);
> }
>
> Question, should these new methods go in an interface called
> ApplicationListener that extends BlockListener or not?
not sure - that was something I was going to try out. I wanted to because I
really really don't want to break backwards compatability prior to going beta
however I am not sure if it is a good idea.
Not sure what do you think?
--
Cheers,
Pete
"The perfect way is only difficult for those who pick and choose. Do not
like, do not dislike; all will then be clear. Make a hairbreadth
difference and heaven and earth are set apart; if you want the truth to
stand clear before you, never be for or against." - Bruce Lee
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
