Hey Sanjiva:
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
Furthermore, its more towards duck typing .. why force people to say "I
implement x" when they already did that by implementing the method?
It's the other way around, for most of the devs I hang with anyway. You
do "implements ServiceLifecycle" and *then* you hit a hotkey in your IDE
which automagically implements the interface methods for you (aahh
tools!). That way you're guaranteed to get it right.
Note that we're NOT suggesting that you MUST implement
ServiceLifecycle to be a service implementation, btw! If you *want*
to, it's cleaner than implementing random methods which then get
searched for with introspection.
I understand this totally but we are trying to force them by marking it
deprecated and planning to remove the old approach in v1.3+.
The people we're "forcing" in that case would be the early adopters who
are already doing this the old way, not anyone who's newly implementing
- but it's a fair point.
So I'm -1 on it ..
Of course this is a VOTE not a code change so it's a non-veto -1. :)
Curious - would you acquiesce if the vote ends up in favor, or would you
actually veto a commit if one occurred?
It's a cleanliness issue, but I'd like to see it fixed.
I'm fine with keeping this issue open for post-1.3 discussion; it doen't
meet the 1.3 bar for me. Of course my feeling about it is stated above;
no interface.
Roger that.
--Glen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
