At 04:21 23/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote: >Leo Simons wrote: >> >> I'm working on updating the docs (yay for me =). >> Please stay away from em... >> >> Several things popped up while updating the lifecycle >> docs... >> >> 1 - Executable and Interruptable are in the proposal, but >> haven't appeared in the main tree yet. Is this something >> you haven't got around to yet, Pete, or is it not gonna >> happen anymore? > >I think it's something that we just haven't gotten around to >yet. I also think Peter is wanting to keep the Startable/Stopable >interfaces to avoid alot of rework in some of his already >written code.
I can always rework it though it would be a pain ;) However at the moment I am more concerned about naming. >Also, I believe that the Runnable interface usually tied to Executable >should be handled by the Component, not necessarily the framework. It >is assumed that between start() and stop(), we are executing the code >for run(). I am removed Runnable stage a while back due to just this reason and because it had lots of undefined behaviour. I pinged the list a few times but no one had any issues so ... ;) 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]
