<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
Dan's point was that they would want to have the same number of package segments in all the interceptor definitions. I don't think that they will ever achieve this, as they might pull in a third-party interceptor, or define their own, which isn't in a place with the same number of package segments.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, naturally, we can't control everything. I was just thinking for our own sanity, within Seam, we could ensure some sort of consistency.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Arguably, it's not the number of package segments that matters, it's the entire prefix (for readability).</blockquote></div><br>Right, my interest is being able to quickly scan our list of interceptors and be able to recognize when there is a typo...or to be able to recall interceptors from memory (based on pattern). Typical things to consider when you are defining an API I would reason.<div>
<br></div><div>-Dan<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>
</div>