You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com> on 2012/01/17 22:31:34 UTC
Why no "default" editor in Ev2?
I'm working at experimenting with a simple Ev2 consumer implementation
(see the ev2-export branch). In doing so, I've once again noticed
that anybody implementing such a consumer has to implement every
receiver. We don't provide default implementations, nor a way to only
specify certain callbacks we're interested in. This is getting a bit
tedious.
Is this part of the design, or simply an oversight? Is there any
drawback to providing default no-op implementations of the various
receivers?
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Re: Why no "default" editor in Ev2?
Posted by Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com>.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 04:31 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> I'm working at experimenting with a simple Ev2 consumer implementation
>> (see the ev2-export branch). In doing so, I've once again noticed
>> that anybody implementing such a consumer has to implement every
>> receiver. We don't provide default implementations, nor a way to only
>> specify certain callbacks we're interested in. This is getting a bit
>> tedious.
>>
>> Is this part of the design, or simply an oversight? Is there any
>> drawback to providing default no-op implementations of the various
>> receivers?
>
> You mean, the way we have default implementations of all the old editor
> functions that are overridden only as necessary? One could argue that no-op
> default receiver implementations are deceptive to drivers of the interface.
> But then, the Ev2 driver can't legitimately expect any particular behavior
> from the Ev2 implementation itself, so... *shrug*. I say "+1 on no-op
> default receiver functions".
Sounds good: r1232910.
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Re: Why no "default" editor in Ev2?
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 01/17/2012 04:31 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> I'm working at experimenting with a simple Ev2 consumer implementation
> (see the ev2-export branch). In doing so, I've once again noticed
> that anybody implementing such a consumer has to implement every
> receiver. We don't provide default implementations, nor a way to only
> specify certain callbacks we're interested in. This is getting a bit
> tedious.
>
> Is this part of the design, or simply an oversight? Is there any
> drawback to providing default no-op implementations of the various
> receivers?
You mean, the way we have default implementations of all the old editor
functions that are overridden only as necessary? One could argue that no-op
default receiver implementations are deceptive to drivers of the interface.
But then, the Ev2 driver can't legitimately expect any particular behavior
from the Ev2 implementation itself, so... *shrug*. I say "+1 on no-op
default receiver functions".
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand