On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 09:43 +0530, Deepal Jayasinghe wrote: > Well , then let's go with the following approach; > - To manage service session life cycle , there is no interface. If user > want to need to get access to any context then he need to add those > three method in to service impl class (init , setOperationConetxt , destroy)
BTW even if we were going with interfaces we'd have to separate setOperationContext because that's totally different from the service context lifecyle. > - To mange service life cycle (which call at the deployment time , and > when the system goes down), he MUST implement an interface and specified > that in services.xml as follows > <service name="foo" class="interface impl class"> +1 from me. Can we agree to document them as: - if you want to monitor service context lifecycle then implement init(ServiceContext)/destroy(ServiceContext) - if you want to monitor operation context lifecycle then implement setOperationContext(OperationContext) - if you want to do something when the service is loaded and off loaded, then implement the ServiceLifecycle interface and give that class to us I'm not thrilled with the method names we have but I'm fine with the design. Anyone ideas for better names (from anyone)? Sanjiva. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
