>I didn't realize that this is the behavior we have now. What's the >purpose of having the interface if we don't require people to implement >it? IMO that makes no sense. > >Either do the interface or don't. Doing both is hacky. > >[Are there any other well-known systems which have this dual mode >behavior? Maybe that'll help convince me. Otherwise I'm against keeping >both. (I'll refrain from using negative numbers for now ;-)).] > > > Well , then let's go with the following approach; - To manage service session life cycle , there is no interface. If user want to need to get access to any context then he need to add those three method in to service impl class (init , setOperationConetxt , destroy) - To mange service life cycle (which call at the deployment time , and when the system goes down), he MUST implement an interface and specified that in services.xml as follows <service name="foo" class="interface impl class">
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
