> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The potential issue here (that we discussed way back) > concerns the fact that a component lifestyle is not assured. > So basically the consuming component does not know if service > implementation is pooled or not - and as such, non-release > of a component could lead to a breakdown because the pool > capacity reaches a maximum. > > There are two aspects which I think change this conclusion ... > > (a) the notion of active versus passive release > (b) the ability of a pool implementation to partitipate in > passive decommissioning when required
But how does this change the conclusion that active release is always safe, and passive release is potentially unsafe, and that the guideline therefore is "always active release"? /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
