[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELTOOLS-62?page=comments#action_12435425 ] Henning Schmiedehausen commented on VELTOOLS-62: ------------------------------------------------
I'm also no longer fond of marker interfaces; Spring showed the right approach here. We could investigated xdoclet here but it would introduce a new depenency. Why must the visibility detemined by the tool itself? Isn't that actually something that *should* be kept in the toolbox configuration? What if the toolbox config and the scope requested by the tool don't match up? > New empty interfaces that allow one to enforce the scope of a tool > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: VELTOOLS-62 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELTOOLS-62 > Project: VelocityTools > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Claude Brisson > Priority: Minor > Attachments: ApplicationTool.java, RequestTool.java, > ServletToolboxManager.patch, SessionTool.java > > > This is a proposal. Once that a tool implements at least one of the three > interfaces RequestTool, SessionTool or ApplicationTool, it means that the > actual scope of the tool must correspond to one of the interfaces the tool is > implementing. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
