>
> I don't follow. Every pool is going to have some sort of
> giveMeOneOfYourPooledInstances method, and most will have a
> imDoneWithThisInstanceYouCanHaveItBackNow method. If we simply agree on
> what those methods are called, and have an interface that defines them, then
> you and I can share pool implementations quite easily. That's the point,
> isn't it?
We can try to use common patterns and method names.
We can also define a common interface - after both (and other ) pool
components will be available.
But I don't think we can create some interfaces, call them a
"common" interface and expect all other impl. to use the "common" interface.
You first need multiple pools ( so you can define something that is
"common" ), then some experience with the use cases and how people use the
pools, and then maybe we can define some interfaces.
But even in that case, it would be far better to keep the implementation
organized as a standalone component and just create an adapter to the
common interface ( which will be probably a set of common features ) .
Costin
