On Tuesday 18 November 2003 22:43, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> And that is a problem. If you had a real example of a working
> application, you'd find that there's a lot of code in the lifecycle
> methods (at least that is the case with our apps). In the type3 example
> all that stuff would have to be in the constructor.
Not having an opinion about his proposal at large (yet), your counter argument
is a bit bleak. Ever heard of methods ;o) ?
public class Abc
{
public Abc( Configuration conf, ServiceManager man )
throws Exception
{
configure( conf );
service( man );
}
}
Would that be so much different from what you are doing now?
AND, you don't have to use what he is suggesting, right?? If you like the
strict cycle (like I do, still), stick with it... But if we get access to
more components, i.e. components written in more neutral ways, I am +1 for
that.
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
