Re: Why no "default" editor in Ev2?
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_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
>> Is this part of the design, or simply an oversight? Is there any
>> drawback to providing default no-op implementations of the various
> 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.
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
Received on 2012-01-18 15:40:44 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev