Christopher Lenz wrote: > Am 18.04.2002 13:46:34, schrieb Jean-Philippe Courson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >>Christopher Lenz wrote: > > [..] > >>For me, inclusion of user-quota-support in particular doesn't matter, >>but the ability to plug, configure and use smoothly Content-Interceptors >>would be great. >> >>I explain myself : Slide's Content-Interceptors concept is great but, >>for now, not very usable ; you can't add parameters to them, they can't >>throw any exceptions and they lack some methods (like >>postRemoveContent). >> >>I think that making these generic Content-Interceptors modifications >>would be painless (I've already written them) and the patches are very >>small and basic so they should not add bugs. >> >>What is your opinion on this ? > > > Well, I agree with your opinions here, and I'll try to find the time to review > and commit your patches asap. > > >>Regards >> >>JP >> >>ps : for more informations on proposed modifications, please see >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02876.html > > > I've just re-read the discussion (which I didn't closely follow, originally). > > One point: IMHO ContentInterceptor should have been an interface from the start. > As the mechanism obviously hasn't been used much (due to it's limited > usability), why not make it an interface now if we're changing the API anyway ? > And provide an abstract class AbstractContentInterceptor to ease implementation.
I agree with you and it's what Remy was suggested (see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02030.html) JP > Are there any good reasons ContentInterceptor isn't an interface ? Would the > above be too much of a change ? > > -chris > _______________________________________________ > /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
