On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 13:56 +0200, Roland Weber wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > > But in theory, one still has to use something like Integer.MAX_VALUE > > to absolutely guarantee that the entry will be added at the end... > > True. Now I remember why I wanted -1 to map to the end of the list. > > > If you don't want to use a magic number, why not have an addAtEnd() method? > > Because we already have too many methods in the interface to > manage two simple lists. *sigh* > > Add constants AT_END to the interfaces? > Or the extra methods? Or leave it as it is? >
Roland, _Personally_ I do not simply see a legitimate use case for wanting to add a protocol interceptor at position three, five or three hundred and one. I just do not. One may legitimately want to have an interceptor executed first _before_ all other or last _after_ all others. That is it. To me #addXXXInterceptor(HttpXXXInterceptor itcp, int index) is pointless for all but two cases (0 or Integer.MAX_VALUE). Leave it as it is. It is good enough. Cheers, Oleg > cheers, > Roland > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
