Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>From: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>Can we standardize on the ??????????? interface for
>>pooled/singlethreaded components? Then I can say:
>>
>>Use the ComponentLocator to get the ComponentManager.
>>
>>
>
>No need. The ComponentLocator is the ComponentManager with a
>new name.
>
I don't think that's what Leo is suggesting. My understanding is that
Leo is talking about standardizing an interface for type of component
that actuall *manages* a pool. I.e. a *real* component manager. He's
saying that he would access this manager via a ComponentLoacator.
>
>
>
>>Use the ComponentManager to get the Component.
>>
>>
>
>Uh, use the ComponentLocator to get the Component.
>
>
No. Use the *real* ComponentManager component returned from the
ComponentLocator to get a pooled component instance.
>
>
>>Once you are done, put the Component back into the ComponentManager.
>>
>>
>
>This is the step we are trying to avoid. It is the incorrect
>and damaging opinion that a component should be released to the
>lookup mechanism.
>
>
I absolutely confident that Leo isn't talking about lookup on a locator.
He's
talking about some form of lookup on a pool manager that he is
suggesting could
be standardized (i.e. a pattern equivalent to the existing CM interface
with
exposure of relase for pooled objects). I'm not going to get into the
question
of wether or not the usage of the word "ComponentManager" is a good idea or
not - but I do support the introduction of an interface that allows exlicit
request and release semantics for pooled objects. There is code in Merlin
(commentted out) that is ready to support exactly the pattern the Leo
suggested.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
