[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Judson Valeski) writes:
> Radha Kulkarni wrote:
>
> > Here's my first shot at nsIHistoryObserver. I'm not sure where the
> > AddObserver() RemoveObserver() interfaces should be added. Those could
> > either go to nsISHistory, making these interfaces specific to Session
> > History observation or they can go to the general Browser object which
> > will encapsulate SHistory and the other 2 types of History Global and
> > Urlbar. I thing it can begin to live in nsISHistory for now.
>
> My general reaction to nsI*Observer interfaces is that they should
> be balled into nsIObserver using observer topics. In this world, the
> methods you've hung off of nsIHistoryObserver would each become
> topics. If we want to encapsulate the history specific "actions" in
> a specific interface (nice and neat) maybe we should call them
> "notifications" (nsIHistoryNotification?).? Or nsIHistoryListener,
> yea, maybe "listener."
One problem with the current nsIObserver interface is that the
callback uses wstrings for data right than nsISupports, making it hard
to pass back many kinds of data. See
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41038
for a bit more on this. If nsIObserver were changed this way, then an
nsIHistoryNotification could be passed back as the data.
Dan
