On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 18:12, Erik Rose <psuc...@grinchcentral.com> wrote:
>> I actually first implemented it exactly that way (even called it
>> IRefreshableLockable), then wondered if the complexity was worth it. I can
>> go either way, but would like to hear some other opinions of best practice
>> in a case like this.
> For what a non-3.x-FWT opinion is worth, I'd rather program against a proper
> IRefreshableLockable interface. Or, if nobody's implementing it in the wild,
> it'd be even better (less complex) to revise ILockable.
ILockable is used in the wild; I've got implementations where TTW
locking is disabled altogether for example, by implementing ILockable
as no-op operations.
Framework-Team mailing list