It makes sense. Maybe we should collect everybody's workarounds, and see if this change would solve it.
Carlos. Dirk Kraemer wrote: > Another topic: Some time ago someone wanted to know the name > of the table the update operation is about: He wanted to write > one interceptor for multiple tables and needed to know which > table is the current one. E.g. a key generating global interceptor > might be such an application. > > So we might also add a 'String tableName' parameter to the > interceptors. Next week we might have another idea. Instead > of adding more and more parameters and always becoming > incompatible with prior versions, what about a new parameter > 'HashTable extraInfo' for all interceptors? A new value to > pass would then just be a new entry within that Hash. We would > not touch the parameter list itself any more. > > If we really decide to touch the interceptor handling and risk > incompatibilities, we should make it in a way that this is > the last time. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: viaVerio will pay you up to $1,000 for every account that you consolidate with us. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4749864;7604308;v? http://www.viaverio.com/consolidator/osdn.cfm _______________________________________________ DbForms Mailing List http://www.wap-force.net/dbforms
