Christopher Lenz wrote: > Am 18.04.2002 16:30:59, schrieb Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>Am 18.04.2002 13:46:34, schrieb Jean-Philippe Courson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [...] > >>>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. >> >>Are there any good reasons ContentInterceptor isn't an interface ? Would the >>above be too much of a change ? > > > ...and, > > [sorry but I hadn't been dealing with the whole ContentInterceptor API before] > > if there is a preStoreContent(), why shouldn't there be preRetrieveContent() and > preRemoveContent() ? preRetrieveContent() might not make sense, but there are > probably use cases for preRemoveContent(). Either way, the interface should be > consistent and have pre/post hooks for each event. Further, there are no hooks > for the fork/merge "events". Should those be added to ? > > We should try to get the API right if we're changing it anyway, IMHO.
I agree > -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]>
