> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > And this is where I disagree - not having remove requires the client > > to know about implementation details such as whether a component > > is thread safe or not, whether it is pooled or not. > > no it doesn't. It implies that the container has to manage resource > allocation and deallocation. It also implies that CM == container (as it does not expose any method for releasing resources) && all requests come in through the CM (otherwise it can not know when a request starts/ends), which is not true. /LS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Stephen McConnell
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Paul Hammant
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Stephen McConnell
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Paul Hammant
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Antti Koivunen
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Berin Loritsch
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Leo Sutic
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Stephen McConnell
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Leo Sutic
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Peter Donald
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Leo Sutic
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Peter Donald
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Leo Sutic
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Peter Donald
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Leo Sutic
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Peter Donald
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Leo Sutic
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Peter Donald
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Leo Sutic
- Re: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Peter Donald
- RE: [VOTE] RE: ComponentManager interface Leo Sutic
