On Dec 14, 3:02 am, "Jorge Ortiz" <jorge.or...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing
> an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs
> being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be
> protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe)
> ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception.
This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone
mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong
case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so
changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What
other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ...
something like ignore it and do nothing?
>
> Nit-pick: why is 'toList' (which just returns 'rules') defined as
> private[http] when 'rules' itself is public?
Why would you use toList in the lift app code? ...RulesSeq is mainly
about adding user functions to lift. If "rules" itself is public
doesn't necessary mean that it should not have its "private" logic.
>
> Also, if RulesSeq are always made up of either Functions or
> PartialFunctions, maybe we should enforce that at a type level, and the
> helper methods on Seqs of PFs that now exist in the NamedPF object can be
> put in the RulesSeq object.
But what would be the benefit? .. except that it would simplify a bit
how Lift calls these PF's?
... to me distinguishing between functions and partial functions here
by using Either or even using different RulesSeq traits would not
bring much benefits ... but I hope I'm wrong.
>
> --j
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marius <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All,
>
> > I committed a bunch of changes in LiftRules. In a previous thread
> > Jorge suggested the abstraction of LiftRules variables. Lists of
> > functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend
> > and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append
> > functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are
> > compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a
> > mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup.
>
> > Br's,
> > Marius
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
