Some questions have arrisen from my first draft of the session paper
that I wrote for ApacheCon. I sent it to Peter, Leo, Fede, and Giacomo
(as well as internal developers here at InfoPlanning.com) for comments.
Both Peter and Leo are on the same page with the Re* methods, and since
I am documenting them, I need to be on the same page as well.
The basic crux is that both Peter and Leo concur that the Re* methods
should be done between suspend() and resume() methods of Resumable. My
question is: What if I implement Reconfigurable but not Resumable?
My train of thought has been that if Resumable is not implemented, it is
up to the Component to manage concurrency issues (i.e. handling a method
call while it is re-configuring). This poses no additional strain on the
Container.
Concidering the mindset that Peter and Leo have, it seems that it would
be an ERROR to not implement Resumable if you are implementing any of the
Re* interfaces. Since I have not used these in anything I have written,
I don't care what the contract is--as long as we are on the same page.
[VOTE]
Is it an error condition to implement the "Re*" interfaces without
implementing "Resumable"?
Should the "Re*" interfaces follow the same order as the normal
versions (i.e. "Reconfigurable" follows same order as "Configurable")?
[NOTE]
If it is NOT an error condition to not include Resumable, what should
the contract be?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
