Darin Fisher wrote:
> Doug
>
> I think that while we're making all of these channel changes, we
> should also consider doing away with the IsA relationship between
> nsIStreamListener/Provider and nsIStreamObserver. This is not
> necessary and it only complicates implementations that would like to
> implement both nsIStreamListener and nsIStreamProvider. There is no
> reason why we couldn't QI for the nsIStreamObserver interface and only
> optionally fire OnStartRequest and OnStopRequest. This would give
> channel clients greater flexibility as they could decide not to
> implement nsIStreamObserver. Take FTP, for example, which doesn't
> care about OnStartRequest and OnStopRequest when writing to the socket
> transport. Thoughts?
>
> Darin
Interesting proposal. FTP is the exception to the IsA rule. The
relationship between the listener and the observer is not "has a". They
really build off of each other as most consumers want a notification at
start, at end, and when there is data. Would this simplify something
you are doing?
--
Doug Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
