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 <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
