On 10-01-11 17:44, Tom Hobbs wrote:
Off the top of my head and in no particular order;
SimsNonActivatableServiceDescriptor
:)
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
Off the top of my head and in no particular order;
NeatNonActivatableServiceDescriptor
SimpleNonActivatableServiceDescriptor
BaseNonActivatableServiceDescriptor
BasicNonActivatableServiceDescriptor
StandardNonActivatableServiceDescriptor
BetterNonActivatableServiceDescriptor
EasyNonActivatableServ
K so the bit I most care about is not tying this constructor to Embedded
alone so how about we compromise:
Create EmbeddedDescriptor as you plan and then add a backlog item to update
other descriptors to optionally exploit this new constructor as well.
?
On 10 January 2011 16:35, Sim IJskes - QC
On 10-01-11 17:31, Dan Creswell wrote:
Embedded feels like the wrong name as I could easily imagine having
non-embedded services taking a reference to a config directly purely because
of "neatness".
I agree, but i couldn't come up with a better one. Proposal?
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor he
Embedded feels like the wrong name as I could easily imagine having
non-embedded services taking a reference to a config directly purely because
of "neatness".
Almost feels like that constructor has wider utility than merely
embedding
On 10 January 2011 16:23, Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
> Any
Any objections to adding a EmbeddedNonActivatableServiceDescriptor
modeled like NonActivatableServiceDescriptor but looking for the
constructor signature:
(Configuration config, LifeCycle lc)
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v.,
