Leo Simons wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote: > [lifestyle semantics revisited]
Niclas Hedhman wrote: > [pluggable lifestyle?]
We've been over this dozens of times over the last few years, it seems.
Over yes - into the details - no.
You're both proposing (again) what I think has previously shown are incomplete (or at least awkward) decompositions.
IMNSHO the solution lies not in attempting to create another lifestyle decomposition matrix, which will always be incomplete, but rather in "encapsulating change": pluggable component handles and adapters.
And I disagree :-)
IMO its about identify what the expected semantics are. If Fortress has a lifestyle handler for the "transient" pattern - will it behave in the same way as the equivalent lifestyle handler in Merlin? Breaking out semantics means that the specification is more complete - and when developers feel the need to create custom companent handles and adapters - they are doing so with a specific set of interfaces and well defined semantic.
I don't have any problem with plugable component handler. Instead I'm addressing the existing lifestyle decomposition matrix we have ("singleton", "thread", "pooled", "transient"). There may be others but that does not discount or reduce the need to get a solid defition of the four "standard" lifestyles.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
