On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 13:52 +0100, Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 12:37 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > Folks
> >
> > I can't help thinking Handler is a bit too generic and not descriptive
> > enough. How do you feel about renaming it to ContentHandler or some
> > such?
>
> I chatted with Henri about this a while @apachecon. We came to the
> conclusion that the current API is to open:
> public interface Handler {
> /**
> * @param openStream
> * the underlying stream
> * @param uri
> * the uri we are currently processing
> * @param parse
> * the parse object from a former processing step
> * @throws Exception
> */
> void handle(InputStream openStream, URI uri, Parse parse)
> throws IOException, DroidsException;
> }
>
> We have access to the parse object, the original stream and the underlying
> URI.
> Back in the days I thought it was a good idea since every possible usecase
> could
> be handled but maybe we it is way too brought.
>
> So maybe we want have different type of handlers:
> - content handler (using parse)
> - stream handler (using the openStream)
BTW, would it be okay to replace InputStream parameter with
ContentEntity? It may also be useful to have access to entity's MIME
type and charset in some Handler implementations
Oleg
> - uri handler (using the uri)
>
> The super interface could look like
> public interface Handler {
> void handle(Object object)
> }
>
> WDYT?
>
> salu2
