At 09:25 AM 5/25/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote: >The basic crux is that both Peter and Leo concur that the Re* methods >should be done between suspend() and resume() methods of Resumable. My >question is: What if I implement Reconfigurable but not Resumable? > >My train of thought has been that if Resumable is not implemented, it is >up to the Component to manage concurrency issues (i.e. handling a method >call while it is re-configuring). This poses no additional strain on the >Container.
sounds good to me. >[VOTE] >Is it an error condition to implement the "Re*" interfaces without >implementing "Resumable"? not sure - how about if Container supports it and container implements suspendable then will try to suspend before doing re* else re* can be called independently. >Should the "Re*" interfaces follow the same order as the normal >versions (i.e. "Reconfigurable" follows same order as "Configurable")? +1 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]
