On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 19:51, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Scott Brickner wrote: > > At the moment, 3.0. I'm flexible, though - I'll take anything that's > > considered a "production level" release. > > > First I would recommend rolling up to 3.2.5 (but that's optional). > > Secondly - prior to some deep and meaningful thinking I would suggest > your use coordination. What your describing is a situation that I've > had to deal with several times in the past - in effect you have a family > of objects and objects need an extra level of coordination. Typically > this can be addressed by declaring a dependency from each member of the > family of components on a singleton coordinator instance. The > coordinator is supplied to all of the members of the family, all of the > children register back with the coordinator during deployment, and when > the coordinator is happy that all of the children are > ready-willing-and-able, the coordinator trips a "go" event. One thing > to be careful to do is to post each event in a separate thread (at least > that's what I've done in the past). > > More generally speaking - the notion of families of components that are > tied one way or another is a issue that I'm come across on multiple > occurs and its something that is not expressed in the component model. > I think its a subject that should be considered my deeply - probably > deserves a post over on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Anyway - do you think the addition of a coordination component will > resolve the problem your dealing with. If no - please let us know and > we dig deeper. >
I think that'll probably work. It feels a little ugly, but hey - right now I need a working server, not a pretty one. Thanks for the suggestion. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
