Michael Wechner wrote:
Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
Michael Wechner wrote:
I don't think we should get rid of the creator interface altogether.
i think we should. as explained in the other thread, it is too generic
to be useful. an array of strings is not an interface you can rely on.
just because the current/old API isn't considered very good, is no
reason to drop
the API completely.
One wants to create or import content into Lenya (how else do you want
to get started otherwise ...) and in most cases it's the same methods
all the time.
Yes, but IIUC that means "we build the framework so that it can handle
most cases easily, and for the other cases we provide a workaround in
the form of a parameter map."
IMO that is bad design. The framework has to present an unambigous API.
There should be no "most cases" approach - if you want a task done that's
not supported by the framework, you can't use the framework. In this case
the framework must be extensible. The question is if usecase overriding
is convenient enough or if we have to find a simpler mechanism.
It is fine with me to keep the Creator interface, as long as we remove
the parameter map. But, to be honest, I see a danger of misuse, because
people might try to pass information to the creator using adventurous
approaches like the session. If we can predict an interface to be
insufficient, we should ask ourselves if the interface should be introduced
(or, in this case, kept) at all.
-- Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
