At 09:39 10/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote: >> >init() throws InitializationException >> >> how about initialize() throws InitializationException ? ;) > >:) I know you proposed this before. Our previous decision >was to keep it init() because of the familiarity of it. However, >looking at the grammatical patterns of Avalon, it would be more >consistent to use initialize(). > >You have my +1 for initialize() if for no other reason than >consistency of the API.
wow - dogged persistency pays off ... the fifth time I prospose it looks like it could get through ;) >What constitutes a RuntimeException in your mind? For things >that MUST succeed or fail hard, we need explicit exceptions. That >would include Contextualizable, Disposable, Initializable, >Composer (Composable?). I like Composable ... anyone else ?? >BTW, I propose that we merge Suspendable and Resumable. It doesn't >make sence to have one without the other. All that means is that >the interfaces do not declare explicit classes, but may throw Runtime >Exceptions. kewl - what name do you propose? Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------* --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
