Carsten Ziegeler wrote
> Justin Edelson wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if we should pass in more parameters like the request etc.
>>> We could do this however these additional things would be optional as
>>> the resource resolver may be used out of the scope of a request.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> interface ResourceDecoratorFilter {
>> Resource decorate(Resource resource, Map<String,Object> context);
>> }
>>
>> Having access to the request object is important IMHO.
>>
> While the map approach would be the most flexible one, I think we don't
> need it atm - the problem with the map is that there has to be someone
> who fills the map before passing it to the decorator. This is the
> resource resolver and the resource resolver itself has no context object
> when resources are resolved. It might have the request object, therefore
> I think Vidam's proposal is fine.
Ups, sorry, I meant Vidar's proposal of course!
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[email protected]
