In fact it should be daemon... But I want to see what JSR-096 comes up
with before switching... I'm on the expert group, and we're evaluating
several different approaches, including this one...
Pier
OK. A dot from me.
Incze
So, now I'm stuck. Which one do you think is better (lately, I'm more
oriented towards the second approach!)
Pier
The HP Core Services Framework defines the
abstract service base class by marker interfaces as
Destroyable, Initializable, Reconfigurable, Startable, Stoppable
public interface Service {
public void init(ServiceContext context) throws Exception;
public void start() throws Exception;
public void stop() throws Exception;
public void destroy() throws Exception;
}
Allways pressing the send button (actually, the 'y' letter in mutt)
pier01/07/30 16:23:55
Added: java/org/apache/service Service.java
Log:
Initial draft of the Service interface.
Revision ChangesPath
1.1 jakarta-tomcat-service/java/org/apache/service/Service.java
Index: Service.java
[EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
public interface Service {
public void load(ServiceContext context) throws Exception;
public void start() throws Exception;
public void stop() throws Exception;
}
I keep going back and forth between two
Kevin Seguin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i kind of like the second approach.
That's what I'm oriented for...
i like the idea, for example, of being able to tweak a config file, then
restart a service without having to restart the entire vm.
Well, that's not _always_ true... For example,
pier01/07/30 18:26:39
Modified:java/org/apache/service Service.java
Log:
Final layout of the Service interface. Craig and Kevin convinced me that
this is the best way to go:
- init() and destroy() will be tied to the lifecycle of the VM process in
the underlying
