At 04:21 23/4/01 -0400, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>> I'm working on updating the docs (yay for me =).
>> Please stay away from em...
>>
>> Several things popped up while updating the lifecycle
>> docs...
>>
>> 1 - Executable and Interruptable are in the proposal, but
>> haven't appeared in the main tree yet. Is this something
>> you haven't got around to yet, Pete, or is it not gonna
>> happen anymore?
>
>I think it's something that we just haven't gotten around to
>yet. I also think Peter is wanting to keep the Startable/Stopable
>interfaces to avoid alot of rework in some of his already
>written code.
I can always rework it though it would be a pain ;) However at the moment I
am more concerned about naming.
>Also, I believe that the Runnable interface usually tied to Executable
>should be handled by the Component, not necessarily the framework. It
>is assumed that between start() and stop(), we are executing the code
>for run().
I am removed Runnable stage a while back due to just this reason and
because it had lots of undefined behaviour. I pinged the list a few times
but no one had any issues so ... ;)
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]
