"Patrick E. Whitesell" wrote:
>
> Well, how averse are you to adding to the Context interface?
I think it depends. Making every context impl support this kind of
advanced chaining isn't something that I think I would support w/o some
convincing.
Will respond to other post with alternatives discussion.
geir
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> > "Patrick E. Whitesell" wrote:
> >
> >> Hey fellas,
> >>
> >> I did some stuff to enchance the Context chaining. This is my first
> >> submission, so let me know if I'm way out of line...
> >>
> >> There are some ugly bits in here due to the fact that the innerContext
> >> is defined as a Context, not an AbstractContext. Does anyone object to
> >> making the innerContext an AbstractContext? If not, I can take the
> >> exceptions out of this code...
> >
> >
> >
> > And yes, w/o thinking much about it, my first reaction is that we want
> > to keep it general as a Context, rather than the AbstractContext. This
> > should keep things more flexible for chaining arbitrary contexts. At
> > least that's the idea...
> >
> > geir
>
> --
> Patrick E. Whitesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
