> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Leo Sutic wrote: > > >>From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > >>Lets see - I can think of two reasons ;) > >> > >> > > > >One reason will be enough - as long as it has to do with > scalability, > >which was what you claimed was the problem. ;) > > > >Your first reason is a design decision - does a component manager > >manage resources, or is it a directory lookup? I go for the > former, you > >go for the latter. The nice thing about Avalon, IMO, is that > it isn't > >just a naming lookup - I have JNDI for that. > > > > I look at the resulting divergence - you have the "release" operation > which is only applicable in the case of pooled resources and yet the > semantics of a pool are undefined at that level or abstraction. The > default implementation of release in CM and SM are empty - > perhaps this > suggests something - its an operation that is inconsitent with the > abstraction supported by CM/SM. Would it not be more appropriate for > "release" to be moved up to another interface where the concepts of a > pool is defined? > > But we've had this discussion before ;-).
Reminder to everyone: The reason for the release() method was largely in part due to the design decisions of the Pool mechanism at the time. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
