Jean-Luc Rochat wrote:
>
> Damian Fauth wrote:
> > >
> > > The second change is simpler. We would like to be able to call
> > > JServ.clear() from other classes in the same package which requires that
> > > it be changed from private to protected. The reason we would like to do
> > > this is that we are developing a wrapper class that interfaces via
> > > native code to the Windows NT Service Control Manager, implementing the
> > > start and stop service control calls as java events. This wrapper class
> > > needs to call JServ.clear() in order to implement the shutdown cleanly.
> > > JServ.terminate() has been declared as protected and it basically calls
> > > JServ.clear() and the exits via System.exit(), so it seems that the
> > > change of JServ.clear() to protected should not have much impact. And
> > > before anyone asks why not just call JServ.terminate(), the
> > > System.exit() seems to cause the native service control manager
> > > executable to exit prematurely.
> > >
> > > What does everyone think? Is there any chance to get these changes into
> > > the next beta, if there is to be one?
>
> Anyone seing any objection ? Can be done in 1.1b4
> Should we synchronize ? I think so.
>
> protected static synchronized void clear() {
>
> +1
+1
> Jean-Luc
>
> PS: Damian: will your code be Open Sourced ? ;-)
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
