[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: andreas
Date: Wed Aug 8 02:59:36 2007
New Revision: 563801
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=563801
Log:
UsecaseAuthorizerImpl: Removed unused code, updated javadocs
@@ -170,19 +177,11 @@
if (usecase != null) {
String _configurationUri;
- // FIXME: this is not clear to me. please comment if you are
familiar with this code...
- // check if this component has a configurationURI. iiuc, that
would have to be specified
- // in the relevant patchfile, in this case
- //
src/modules-core/usecase/config/cocoon-xconf/usecase-authorizer.xconf
- // however, that file does not specify such a URI.
+ // Check if the service has been parameterized with a
configuration URI. This
+ // can be used for testing purposes etc.
thanks for clarifying.
however, why would anyone want to do this? it means the
UsecaseAuthorizerImpl configuration makes the policy decisions. i can
see how it might have been useful for debugging purposes, but exporting
it visibly is not a good idea imho. plus it makes the code a lot harder
to understand, with getConfigurationURI() being something totally
different that getConfigurationURI(publication).
is there a compelling reason to keep this configuration option? one
practical usecase would be enough to convince me. for debugging
purposes, people can doctor the getConfigurationURI method just as well...
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
