At 08:55 13/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> Looks good to me but how about we do it via
>>
>> interface Executable extends Startable, Stoppable {}
>> interface Interruptable extends Suspendable, Resumable, Executable {}
>>
>> This would leave the issue more open for people who have done it that way
>> in past.
>
>I think you missed the whole analysis I presented on why I came
>up with this approach in the first place. You are always telling
>us to prove it to you why we think something, now I am asking that
>of you. In what circumstance would something be Startable but
>not Stoppable? A _real_ use case. Also, I want to know why you
>think it would have to be Startable without being Stoppable instead
>of using the Command pattern I proposed.
I don't think that ;) But I have used Stoppable throughout my code fairly
regularly. As startable/stoppable can be called multiple times in lifecycle
there are many cases where I will stop something and then start it up
again. The typical use case of stop involves clearing out caches but my
start methods would always be empty. I am not sold on it - it is just going
to be an absolute PITA for me to use because I have to change massive
amounts of code to add in blank methods ;) (And I can't automate it safely).
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
