Stefano Bagnara schrieb: > Norman Maurer wrote: >> Stefano Bagnara schrieb: >>> We should probably move logging of ok/deny operations from specific >>> hooks to this Hook result interceptor. >> This sound like a good idea, but i have to think a bit more about >> this .. > > The first that open the workspace should add this to TODO so we > remember to test it. >
Done ;-) >>> Furthermore I would probably use "HookResultHandler" or >>> "HookResultInterceptor" instead of "HookResultHook" as this shouldn't >>> be part of the "public hook api" (not needed for easy user-oriented >>> tasks). >> I think i not agree.. Why you want this not in the "public hook api" ? I >> think there are some use cases which whould need it. For example update >> a database on each DENY for graphing etc .. Or just for statistic >> generation. But i agree that the name is probally not the best.. > > Ok. Let's call it HookResultInterceptor. > > It is not important now wether it will be public or not: the important > thing is that we find out wether it works and if we like it more than > other approaches: and it seems we agree on this. > > Stefano +1 Norman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
