Sounds good to me. On 13 September 2014 23:53, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> Which ever way we go on this, let's get 2.1 out the door first. We have > some nice new functionality for 2.1 already (JUL, IO streams). Once we fix > our clock threading issue, I say we clean thing up and prepare 2.1. > > Gary > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> They're the most flexible. Quick overview of the life cycle in OSGi: >> >> installed -> resolved -> (starting) -> active -> (stopping) resolved -> >> uninstalled >> >> Installed is the initial state. Resolved is when all its dependencies >> have been fulfilled. During the starting state, if there is an error, then >> it goes back to resolved. Active for while it's, well, active. Stopping >> puts the thing back into resolved. Then, if you go from resolved to >> uninstalled, this means that it's no longer available for use (and the only >> reason you'd find something in this state for very long is due to a memory >> leak). >> >> Any objections? This would make our LifeCycle interface more compatible >> with OSGi while providing a well-understood standard for the life cycle of >> plugin-type objects. >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
