Geer, Christopher S wrote:
If there is already a IDisposable.Dispose(), then why not use it?What
context is it used with? I see no sense in reinventing the wheel.
I agree we should use the provided interface if we can.
Short list is:
Configurable
LookupEnabled
Initializable
Disposable
I'm assuming that you mean to role start() and stop() into Initializable or something? Also, what about Suspendable, Reconfiguration and the other Re's? Personally I beleive that those are very important interfaces to support. While you could just role those into the list above that would almost require everyone support them, which would mean if someone didn't want them they would just have empty methods, giving someone a false belief that the compoenent actually supported them.
My view is that the Re interfaces should be progressively withdrawn. Take something like configurable - it declares the contract for how a container passes a configuration to a component. If you have additional meta information about the component you can establish if the component supports reconfiguration or not, and if it does, you can suspend and reapply a configuration using the configurable interface. This approach seperates the re-semantics out into meta-info and preserves the structural interface as a nothing more that the computational mechanism for passing a configuration to a component.
My 0.02.
Cheers, Stephen.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
