On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:52, Paul Hammant wrote:
> >>
> >>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.
>
> So the block listener developer instantiates and throws back? I'd go for :
>
> ApplicationStartupException extended by VetoApplicationStartupException
> (to please Stephen?).
Im not sure - seems like extra complexity that we don't need? Is there any
going to be more than 1 type of exception?
> >>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?
>
> For the sake of backCompat, I;d say ApplicationListener extends
> BlockListener then.
ok. Fine by me. It feels a bit icky technically but right because it is
backwards compatible. I suppose in the future we could add an
AbstractBlockListener and gradually migrate them to one interface (at same
time we go from alpha to beta).
> Lastly, and unrelated. I'm (as you know) using Mozilla. Its inline
> replies are apparently no so nice. Is the "double CR" like I'm using in
> this reply better for you textmode readers? You using pine?
no idea - I use KMail (from KDE desktop) and it handles most things well. (It
is like Eudora of 1 revision ago if that helps).
--
Cheers,
Pete
--------------------------------
My opinions may have changed,
but not the fact that I am right
--------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
