Fine with me. +1 then
Regards
Henning
On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 00:51, Daniel Rall wrote:
> "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >The addition of TorqueSingleton doesn't get us out of this situation
> > >by any chance, does it?
> >
> > That was the whole idea. The Singleton helped me to get rid of all the
> > static references in Torque itself. For me (and at least for Martin,
> > too) it works fine now as standalone Torque and as an Avalon
> > component.
>
> A huge +1 from me on the reasoning behind that change. Velocity takes
> a very similar approach.
>
> One tweak to this which I would like to propose (and thus volunteer to
> carry out) is changing the name of the class from "TorqueSingleton" to
> "TorqueInstance" (or something similar). To me, "singleton" implies
> that there is only a single instance allowed per class loader. If
> TorqueSingleton doesn't already allow multiple instances of itself per
> class loader, this seems like a natural goal, and changing the name is
> a solid step in the right direction.
>
> - Dan
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
--- Quote of the week: "It is pointless to tell people anything when
you know that they won't process the message." --- Jonathan Revusky
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
