Am 18.04.2002 16:30:59, schrieb Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Am 18.04.2002 13:46:34, schrieb Jean-Philippe Courson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...] >>ps : for more informations on proposed modifications, please see >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02876.html > >I've just re-read the discussion (which I didn't closely follow, originally). > >One point: IMHO ContentInterceptor should have been an interface from the >start. As the mechanism obviously hasn't been used much (due to it's limited >usability), why not make it an interface now if we're changing the API anyway ? >And provide an abstract class AbstractContentInterceptor to ease >implementation. > >Are there any good reasons ContentInterceptor isn't an interface ? Would the >above be too much of a change ?
...and, [sorry but I hadn't been dealing with the whole ContentInterceptor API before] if there is a preStoreContent(), why shouldn't there be preRetrieveContent() and preRemoveContent() ? preRetrieveContent() might not make sense, but there are probably use cases for preRemoveContent(). Either way, the interface should be consistent and have pre/post hooks for each event. Further, there are no hooks for the fork/merge "events". Should those be added to ? We should try to get the API right if we're changing it anyway, IMHO. -chris _______________________________________________ /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
