[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-32?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13287381#comment-13287381
]
Stefan Guggisberg edited comment on OAK-32 at 6/1/12 2:09 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
fixed as proposed in svn r1345141
the MicroKernelFactory issue (i.e. how should MicroKernel instances ideally be
created) has not been addressed.
was (Author: stefan@jira):
fixed as proposed in svn r1345141
the MicroKernelFactory issue (who should MicroKernel instances ideally be
created) has not been addressed.
> Drop MicroKernel.dispose()
> --------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-32
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-32
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: mk
> Reporter: Jukka Zitting
> Assignee: Stefan Guggisberg
> Fix For: 0.3
>
> Attachments: OAK-32.patch
>
>
> Just like a client of the MicroKernel interface doesn't know how a MK
> instance is created, there should not be a need for a client to be able to
> dispose an instance. For example the lifecycle of a MK instance running as an
> OSGi service (or any other component framework) is managed by the framework,
> not by clients. Thus I suggest that the MicroKernel.dispose() method is
> removed.
> The only piece of code that's notably affected by this change is the
> MicroKernelFactory class still in oak-core and any client code that uses it
> to construct new MicroKernel instances. I think we should replace the MKF
> class with a more generic solution as outlined in OAK-17.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
