I wrote:
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> Also, I thought that we were in favor of separating Intializable
>> and Disposable.
>>
>
> They are seperate in 4.9 and bound together in 5.0 proposal.
> I am in favour of maintaining them as seperate interfaces (i.e. no
> change).
Just diid a quick review of our internal code base and I could not find
any occurance of Initializable without Disposable. I did find some
occurances of Disposable without Initializable. A possibly more
approapriate defintion of Initializable could be:
public interface initializable extends Disposable
{
void initialize() throws Exception;
}
But its really early in the morning and I'm just thinking out-load :-)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
