Hi Berin, I wait a bit more until you read my answer to this one from Stephen. =;o)
Have fun, Paulo > -----Original Message----- > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:46 PM > To: Avalon Developers List > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface > > > Stephen McConnell wrote: > > Paulo: > > > > I agree on the efficiency point, .. however the interface is > > loosing something in terms of implicit clarity and potential for > > consistent usage (it's starting to look more like hashtable > > get/indexof/remove). I would prefer to move further towards an > > interface that (a) expresses notions of service provision/ > > decommissioning more concretely and explicitly (i.e. closer to > > yesterday), but (b) enhanced to address input from yourself, > > Antti and Sylvain during the evening that touched on the > > parallelism between lookup and hasXxxx. Thinking about the > > parallelism issue for the last few hours as a result of those > > comments leads me to the conclusion that non-parallel > > lookup/hasXxxx effectively implies potentially unwarranted > > implementation restrictions. A resolution could be the addition > > of a supplementary hasXxxx method as shown below. > > > > interface ServiceManager > > { > > Object lookup( final String role ); > > Object lookup( final String role, Map policy ); > > > > boolean hasService( final String role ); > > boolean hasService( final String role, Map policy ); <-- > addition ? > > > > void release( Object key ); > > } > > > > The addition of hasXxxxx( key, policy ) ensures that your not going > > on a blind date. The boolean result of the operation should > > semantically be quite clear in that TRUE hasXxxxx response should > > indicate that within reasonable operating conditions, the lookup > > operation will not fail. It is then up to implementations to resolve > > decisions concerning ability to honour a service availability > > commitment (potentially in the context supplied policy). > > > > What do you think? > > > Sounds good. > > > -- > > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety > deserve neither liberty nor safety." > - Benjamin Franklin > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
