On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:22, Leo Sutic wrote: > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Same way as you deal with all resources. ie call close(), > > release() etc. > > So can I assume that every component, or every XXXXManager > has a close() or release() method? > > Is this how you intend it to work: ...snip...
Mostly except I would only define it for services that allocate resources (or potentially allocate resources). Theres a whole family of services that don't do that (ie they only act on what is given to them in method call) and the only state they use is setup at initialization time. I tend to do pooling internal to components if at all and let them do all the work inside as that way implementation is completely up to component rather than component + pooling mechanisms. -- Cheers, Peter Donald *---------------------------------------------------------* | Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user-friendly. It | | just happens to be selective on who it makes friendship | | with. | | - Richard Cook | *---------------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
