> > At the same time I would see for a nice service where you
> provide a set of
> > services that are needed for a particular configuration. You would be
> > notified immediately through a boolean return that all the services you
> > requested are already on line. And what you register is a callback
> > interface with methods such as "public void allOnline()", equivalent of
> > "dinner is served" for the service, but also maybe a "public boolean
> > serviceGoingDown(Service orSomething)" as soon as one of the
> services in the
> > required set is going down. This way you don't have to code the
> > notifications yourself, it is a JMXBean of sorts.
>
> Nah, could be even simpler. When the requirements are set the nice
> service could dynamically invoke "start" on the service. No need for the
> actual service to be involved at all. And that's the neat thing: the
> service that has the dependencies does not have to be changed *at all*.
> I think this is how the relationship service in JMX is supposed to work;
> if it doesn't, we'll make one like that.
if you want to call "start" instead of "allOnline" that is fine. However we
can simply make the case that "serviceGoingDown" is a finer grain
notification than "stop", hence the need for an interface.
> Well, as above I have already tried this in XS, and although the
> implementation is set-based, the behaviour "looks" graph-based. It's
> very cool, and simple to do as well.
;-) yes it should be simple
m
>
> /Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard �berg
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.telkel.com
> http://www.jboss.org
> http://www.dreambean.com
>
>
