Rickard Oberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Justin Forder wrote:
>> I was taking "usability" to relate to the question: "I know what I want
>> to do; can I understand how to use this tool to do it?", and I was
>> assuming that (for example) Add... and Remove buttons together with
>> drag-and-drop ordering would be OK for this.
>>
>> A more ambitious interpretation of "usability" would relate to the
>> question: "can I use this tool to explore configuration alternatives in
>> safety?"
>>
>> Satisfying this would require constraints (e.g. preconditions and
>> postconditions) to be associated with interceptors, and all changes in
>> the tool to be checked against these constraints. Too ambitious?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I had meant to write: Too ambitious!
>
>Exactly. My main assertion is that in this case
>"flexible"=="complex"!="good usability", especially since 95%(99%?) will
>never want to bother with this.
>
>> Stepping back, the question we should ask first is: "Who needs this
>> facility?"
>>
>> My answer: Interceptor developers.
>
>Not really. Interceptor developers are would want to add their stuff,
>yes, but I doubt that you would want to put the burden on the user to
>get this right. It's just too error-prone IMHO.
I think we agree. Interceptor developers need support for swapping
(versions/variants of) interceptors in and out quickly.
End-users want (at most) to choose between proven configurations.
>
>> They may have a different toolset from end-users/sysadmins, and I feel
>> that they would benefit from the GUI tool (or the config file).
>
>The config file more than the GUI (which is for end-users).
>
>Alright, I will hardcode this stuff for now, but the proper way to do it
>is probably to make ContainerFactory configurable.
Happy with that.
--
Justin Forder
