I've not really been following this thread (pardon the pun) as I've not yet
required Actions in my work. However, from a quick review of the discussion
I believe that it would be best for each Action to decide: +0.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giacomo Pati [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2001 4:46 pm
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [end?]Re: Why does Action extend ThreadSafe ?
>
>
> Quoting Berin Loritsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Giacomo Pati wrote:
> > >
> > > > PLEASE COMMITERS vote on this:
> > > >
> > > > Is it best to remove the TheradSafe interface from the Action
> > interface?
> >
> > I am +1 on this move. See my analysis thread for the reasons why.
> > (Same reason
> > I promoted not implementing LifeStyle interfaces in component work
> > interfaces).
>
> As the Action IS a component work interface and a move of all
> map:components
> into the xconf file might be realized some times I will follow as well.
>
> > While Actions will be implemented 99 times out of 100 in a ThreadSafe
> > manner,
> > it does not guarantee that there won't be a legitimate reason to not do
> > it.
>
> This is hypothetic because I haven't got any samples on that.
>
> Giacomo
>
> >
> > It costs very little to do this, so I give my +1 on it.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
