On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:33, Greg Steuck wrote: > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> how do you feel about specifying in ConnectionHandler's contract > >> that the caller is responsible for shutting the connection down > >> and the handler shouldn't bother? I am attaching a patch to that > >> effect. > > Peter> I get a bit nervous ;) The Connection stuff is fairly widely > Peter> used. Whats your motivation for this? > > I just want to make the behavior already implemented by > DefaultConnectionManager part of the contract. It is a legitimate > question after all: "Who gets to close the socket?" And I don't see > a reason not to make it part of the ConnectionManager responsibility. > It's the one that creates the socket after all...
oh - in that case sure. I thought you wanted to change behaviour ;) -- Cheers, Peter Donald *------------------------------------------------* | Trying is the first step to failure. | | So never try, Lisa - Homer Jay Simpson | *------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
