Re: Call: putting some code back that was removed to much.

[Rob Vermeulen]

Kees Jongenburger wrote:

On Friday 17 January 2003 05:37 pm, Rob Vermeulen wrote:

[X] -1 (NAY), because :

first don't care about changes in the scanparser and I undestand that you don't want to change the syntax of scan. At time of calling I didn't know
that COUNTER wat a scan tag.
so +1 for changing the scanparser

CounterInterface contains only public String getTag( String part, sessionInfo session, scanpage sp );

I am shure the counter can be done without the CounterInterface
can't it be done with a ProcessorInterface ?

The counter code needs an interface to be able to use classes that implements that interface rather than talking directly to that class. Not using an interface would enforce that we have to specify a vpro specific class, and the MMBase code will not compile without that class.

Why not using the processorInterface?
A counter just isn't a processor. The counterinterface already existed and i just placed it back. Just implementing a wrong interface to avoid having another class is not smart in my opinion.

greetings Rob

I mean Who is using the counter code?

VPRO

Who wil use it?

VPRO