Lifecycle of runtime extensions, was: [DISCUSS] Next version - What should be in it

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino]

[snip]
Simon Nash wrote:
I agree with the comments from Ant and Simon on focusing on stability
and consumability at the moment rather than adding a large amount of
new function.

I've been working on a complex bug fix recently (watch this space
for a JIRA and patch) and I noticed that we lost some previously
working support for AbstractLifecycle in the recent round of
runtime changes to remove the use of SCA to assemble the Tuscany
runtime.  I have had to code around this to make progress and I
would like to get a good story in place for how we manage the
lifecycle of runtime objects, focusing particularly on destruction
and resource reclamation in long-running scenarios.  Failure to do
this can lead to a variety of problems that are hard to track down.
I would be pleased to work on this to put in place a consistent
approach and document how it works.

  Simon


Simon,

There is support for managing the lifecycle of runtime extensions. 
ModuleActivators must implement the ModuleActivator.start() and stop() 
methods, and cleanup their state in the stop() method.  Could you 
describe the specific problem you've run into? Is one of the 
ModuleActivators in particular not implementing stop() correctly?

Thanks

--
Jean-Sebastien


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]