On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 00:49, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Tuesday 09 December 2003 06:29, Farr, Aaron wrote: > > 3. Meta level dependencies don't work here. We are not talking about > > something that the client needs from the service manager, we're talking > > about something it looks up via JNDI. Perhaps our notion of dependency > > needs to expand. > > IMHO, No, we don't need to expand the notion of dependency. > We need to remove the "static assembly" and introduce a "Service Availability" > contract.
<snip> > Making sense? Yes. This is along the ideas of container events that has been discussed before. The concept was that container extensions could be better implemented if the container used some sort of event model for lifecycle and deployment actions. As soon as I finish these finals, I'll start thinking about it more. > As for now, I would suggest that your client is not so "greedy". Yes, "for now" But I think that in any case, such solutions are just a hack waiting for a the better solution of "Service Availability" or better startup control. -- jaaron <http://jadetower.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
