> control" that everyone depended on, and if that was started everything
> was started (given that the other requirements were met), and if it was
> stopped, the entire server got stopped.
well, that's not good, we need to stop only the set that depends on the
service going down.
>
> I think that is how we should do this. There is one problem here with
> the messages being asynchronous though: during "stop" one wants to first
> send the notification that the service is stopping *before* it is
> actually stopped, to allow any services to gracefully stop using it. For
> example, if I want to stop the logging facility the other services that
> uses it would want to stop first so that their "I have now stopped ok"
> messages are shown.
I agree, and that is yet another argument in favour of a "notification" and
then "stop" :)
marc
>
> /Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard �berg
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.telkel.com
> http://www.jboss.org
> http://www.dreambean.com
>
>
