Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> 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.
+1
>
> 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"?
-1
Can't see need to require re* components to be suspendable/resumable
What wa the rationale?
>
> Should the "Re*" interfaces follow the same order as the normal
> versions (i.e. "Reconfigurable" follows same order as "Configurable")?
+1
>
> [NOTE]
> If it is NOT an error condition to not include Resumable, what should
> the contract be?
How about:
if component instanceof Suspendable then re* will be called between
suspend() and resume()
Otherwise re* maybe called at anytime.
if more than one re* called, then order will be as for non-re* lifecycle
methods
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
