Leo Sutic wrote:
>
>>From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>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'm fine with that.
>
Leo:
I currently playing around with the metainfo and metadata stuff in
Excalibur and have some interesting content emerging that is an
abstraction above any of the kernels or containers. The next step is to
figure out policy - i.e. how to express constraints/directive in the
metadata that would enable a kernel to do-the-right-thing. Given that
there appears to be some level of consensus emerging re. the
ComponentManager interface, could you do me a big favor and put
together of summary of the conclusion so that my picture of what is
needed/understood is nailed down as much as possible. I have some
initial thoughts and worries about managing this at the metalevel
(nothing insurmountable - more a question of making sure I've got a
clean picture of what's being proposed and validating this against
the metainfo structures).
Cheers, Steve.
>
>
>/LS
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
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]>
