At 09:39 10/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> >init() throws InitializationException
>>
>> how about initialize() throws InitializationException ? ;)
>
>:) I know you proposed this before. Our previous decision
>was to keep it init() because of the familiarity of it. However,
>looking at the grammatical patterns of Avalon, it would be more
>consistent to use initialize().
>
>You have my +1 for initialize() if for no other reason than
>consistency of the API.
wow - dogged persistency pays off ... the fifth time I prospose it looks
like it could get through ;)
>What constitutes a RuntimeException in your mind? For things
>that MUST succeed or fail hard, we need explicit exceptions. That
>would include Contextualizable, Disposable, Initializable,
>Composer (Composable?).
I like Composable ... anyone else ??
>BTW, I propose that we merge Suspendable and Resumable. It doesn't
>make sence to have one without the other. All that means is that
>the interfaces do not declare explicit classes, but may throw Runtime
>Exceptions.
kewl - what name do you propose?
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
