-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Renaming it would break backwards-compatibility. (People would be contributing to a nonexistent service.)
But apart from that... :) /Filip On 2009-04-02 14:29, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Robert Zeigler <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey Thiago (and anyone else who wants to jump in the fray :), > > Hi! > >> I'm curious as to your rationale for making URLRewriterService (heretofore >> known as URLRewriter) an "internal" service interface? >> If this is something that users are /encouraged/ to contribute to, for url >> rewriting, shouldn't it be a "public" interface? > > My rationale for making it internal was that I see no reason for > anyone to use URLRewriter directly (and I don't think contributing to > it is using it directly), therefore making it easy for committers to > make changes to it without breaking backward compatibility (including > renaming it, hehehe). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJJ1L+nAAoJEEfiH7PpjaMndhcH/RuPQOKrp7leH0PC+gtZSBrE PcH9BTZFSOL+MEpEjX8cG9kpvF5dmBM4CNq8geH8GVx+iTf2CGzLmkQ6o6mLFBvd 4Mt92XAbJvyubcVqS1T/zHWXh7p1e920Hi7ttkK8p5qXcjO0gXKSjbKwnKTaTMe9 nJMS6MflMLWpabMFf//4NOkAe8NLxHTluQ9wR5SUEm/JMurJ1WdNLU6izM3MY4wc J47UTPJqRgUlAR/D7FebDYCu/UqZV50AivclqggLH1D+GKVsGY2mwTWz8a2Q82hF cdLrxQZMGrdcn5ASc8kSdWqVwE+30K0E77vUKAY8TGMom6HPVoVCXn3tKVLGoVU= =a067 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
