Hi!
marc fleury wrote:
> > 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.
Please read again. What I said was that I had a top-node that everyone
depended on, just to be able to easily start and stop the entire server
in one click. It will work like you want (because that is what I
said!!).
> > 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" :)
Yup, the "stopping"/"stopped" that we already have ;-) All that is
needed is that this state change is actually propagated to dependent
services too.
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
