James, (I think you must have by accident sent your last message to me only and not the mailing list.)
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:28:46 -0500, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any thoughts on the new method for RegistryBuilder? Also, what is the > process here? Do I have to get approval for every little thing I do in the > codebase? Are we supposed to vote on simple little changes such as adding > the addDefaultModuleDescriptorProvider() method? As I said before, I am new > to this committer thing, so I'm a little gunshy to start committing changes > in. But, I don't see this particular method as causing too many problems, > since most scenarios where you would want to add in custom module > descriptors, you also want the default ones too. It's really just a > refactoring, but I am making the extracted/moved method public. > I'm +1 on this one. Although I think it was a good start, to me something still doesn't feel quite right with these ModuleDescriptorProviders... IMO small changes like this one can be committed without prior discussions on the mailing list. We do after all have CVS so the change is still easily undone if someone feels unhappy about it. > Anyway, thanks for the tips here on the documentation. I had already found > a couple of them, but I will address the rest before I check anything in. > Also, do you think it's worth changing the name of the > getPrecedingInterceptorIds() and getFollowingInterceptorIds() methods in the > ServiceInterceptorContribution interface, since they're not really ids > anymore, but names? I was updating the javadoc of that class when I ran > across it. > Yes, IMO that sounds good. --knut --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
