At 09:25 AM 5/25/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>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.
sounds good to me.
>[VOTE]
>Is it an error condition to implement the "Re*" interfaces without
>implementing "Resumable"?
not sure - how about
if Container supports it and container implements suspendable then will try
to suspend before doing re* else re* can be called independently.
>Should the "Re*" interfaces follow the same order as the normal
>versions (i.e. "Reconfigurable" follows same order as "Configurable")?
+1
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]
