Berin Loritsch wrote: > > Some questions have arrisen from my first draft of the session paper > that I wrote for ApacheCon. I sent it to Peter, Leo, Fede, and Giacomo > (as well as internal developers here at InfoPlanning.com) for comments. > > Both Peter and Leo are on the same page with the Re* methods, and since > I am documenting them, I need to be on the same page as well. > > 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.
+1 > > Concidering the mindset that Peter and Leo have, it seems that it would > be an ERROR to not implement Resumable if you are implementing any of the > Re* interfaces. Since I have not used these in anything I have written, > I don't care what the contract is--as long as we are on the same page. > > [VOTE] > Is it an error condition to implement the "Re*" interfaces without > implementing "Resumable"? -1 Can't see need to require re* components to be suspendable/resumable What wa the rationale? > > Should the "Re*" interfaces follow the same order as the normal > versions (i.e. "Reconfigurable" follows same order as "Configurable")? +1 > > [NOTE] > If it is NOT an error condition to not include Resumable, what should > the contract be? How about: if component instanceof Suspendable then re* will be called between suspend() and resume() Otherwise re* maybe called at anytime. if more than one re* called, then order will be as for non-re* lifecycle methods Charles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
