Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-phoenix-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 33077 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2002 14:09:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Sep 2002 14:09:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 14492 invoked by uid 97); 8 Sep 2002 14:10:29 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-phoenix-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 14476 invoked by uid 97); 8 Sep 2002 14:10:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-phoenix-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon-Phoenix Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-phoenix-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 14464 invoked by uid 98); 8 Sep 2002 14:10:28 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3D7B5A30.5050103@thinkdynamics.com> Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 10:09:52 -0400 X-Sybari-Trust: 063de3bf 1892df56 e6981bed 0000093d From: Igor Fedorenko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon-Phoenix Developers List Subject: Re: three improvements to avalon/phoenix References: <3D5972E2.4040900@thinkdynamics.com> <200208131708.09145.proyal@apache.org> <3D5A635C.3040208@thinkdynamics.com> <200209082259.22397.peter@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2002 14:09:53.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[6725B390:01C25741] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Peter Donald wrote: > Okay - I have started applying your patch to the "FACTORY-branch" branch in > Phoenix CVS. You can grab it via > > cvs up -r FACTORY-branch > > And this will convert your existing tree to the new branch. (cvs up -A to > return to main branch). Thank you, Peter. > > One thing I noticed is that you added the Interceptors to the BlockInfo but I > though that was kinda strange as they are associated with a block instance. > Hence I moved the interceptors to BlockMetaData instead. That seem > reasonable? Of course, it does. Now I see the reason for both metainfo and metadata packages! :-) > BTW when sending patches it is usually better to send lots of small patches so > we can check and apply them faster - Documentation would also speed up the > process ;) I can resubmit interceptors/factories as a series of small patches for FACTORIES-branch if it'll make your job easier. Plus I have added interceptor context, so you do not have the latest version of the patch anyways. -- Igor Fedorenko Think smart. Think automated. Think Dynamics. www.thinkdynamics.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: