Am 03.07.2014 20:23, schrieb Howard Lewis Ship:
The intent was that no additional services would be acquired once the
shutdown began since that raises ambiguities (what if those services add
further shutdown listeners, will they get invoke).
Good point, I didn't think of that.
That being said, we may be a little too strict here.
I think so too. If you have services that use other services to shut
down properly, that means that you'll have to realize them eagerly so
they are available in the shutdown listeners.
I think we should make an exception for the will-shutdown listeners. If
those add new *shutdown* listeners, that shouldn't be much of a problem.
Those will be invoked at a later point anyway.
If they add other will-shutdown listeners, those should probably be
invoked too. AFAICT, that should not cause an issue either as we use a
copy-on-write list for the preListeners already.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Jochen Kemnade <kemn...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
yes, I know that's the purpose of the Shutdown hub. I'm not questioning the
hub/listener thing as such, only that those listeners that are registered
to observe when the registry is *about* to shut down *after* essentially
shutting it down. I wonder if that behavior is intentional.
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
