Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > <snip/> > > So, it makes perfect sense to merge the two aspects into a single CM. +1
> <snip/> > > You know what? I'm starting to think that the java GC is a gigantic > mistake. Why? simple, it's useless. > I totally agree here - before I started Java programming I used many other languages where you explicitly have to care about object disposal. If you follow one or two strict rules, you don't have any problems and really do not need a GC - but let's focus on the topic again. Java has a GC - and we will not change it, anyway. > A GC continue to skeep thru your object space to look for 'detached' > objects. That's a great implementation, but what if I forgot to 'detach' > those objects? > > If GC was that effective, why Java programs leak memory anyway? > > Some people believe that Java is inherently safer than C because it has > garbage collection that prevents people from shooting themselves in the > foot with direct pointers to memory. > > WRONG! > Exactly! > <snip> > > So, from an elegance point of view, it makes perfect sense, for Avalon, > to provide aspect-oriented construction strategies *and* aspect-oriented > destruction strategies. +1000 > > Just like it's the component manager's concern to construct your > component the way the component was instructed to (depending on the > interfaces it implements), similarely, it should be the component > manager's concern (or some proxy slave, that's an implementation detail) > to dispose the component, depending on the disposing strategy that the > component implements. +1000 again Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
