On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:45, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Careful now. Remember we have pure Factory based and Pooled resources. > And sitting betweeen them in scratchpad is PerThread. Each of these need > a mechanism to release resources when the object (per the container's > spec) needs to be decommissioned. It is not the responsibility of the > client to decommission the service--it *must* be released so the container > knows that it is no longer in use.
Sounds like you are saying we should zap the release call then ;) > > An implementation of ServiceManager can dispose of component when > > it's container disposes of the manager implementation. The typical > > situation with a ServiceManager is that it will provide non-disposable > > singleton services, factories, or new instances of transient objects. > > In the case of the services it exposes, the manager should be > > responsible for handling service decommissioning (invoking stop, > > dispose, whatever). Clients of the service manager should NOT dispose > > of shared services because these service can be in use across multiple > > clients. > > True. However, the client does need to release it so the container > knows it is safe! No it doesn't. See other email for examples to show that this is not the case. -- Cheers, Pete ------------------------------------------------------ Mark Twain: "In the real world, the right thing never happens in the right place at the right time. It is the task of journalists and historians to rectify this error." ------------------------------------------------------ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
