On Jul 14, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Instead I'd like to propose we support an init-level indicator like
the run level from Unix systems. Components would be started in
ascending order of the init level they provided.
This could be done as an attribute on the component
On Jul 14, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The Java implementation model allows components to designate that
they are eager init which means that they will be initialized
when the composite they are in is started rather than on first use.
One problem that I ran into with the
thinking of something that may cause complications
with this approach?
Jim
Many thanks
Meeraj
-Original Message-
From: Jim Marino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 July 2006 21:05
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Component start order
On Jul 14, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jeremy
Hi,
I don't think this is an init specific issue. To me, it's more about how
to define dependencies for components. If one component A is required to be
initialized before component B, it hints that Component B has a dependency
on Component A.
I remember that Jeremy was proposing to use
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 July 2006 21:18
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Component start order
On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
First, eagerness is associated with the scope, not an initializer
callback, IMO.
Jim, would this mean there would
On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Are you thinking of something that may cause complications with this
approach?
No, dependencies was the first the first thing that popped into my
mind
when Jeremy mentioned sort order. As you suggested, dependencies will
have to
Joel, forgive me if I missed it but if I have two Immediate
components in the same bundle with no dependencies (so they are
implicitly Satisfied) , is there anything that determines in which
order they start?
The (awkward) scenario I have in mind is where there is no explicit
dependency
On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
I'm wondering if specifying the start level in SCDL is crossing
semantics with eager init...
As background, one thing I was planning on proposing to the spec
was moving eager init off of @Init and onto @Scope for couple of
reasons. First,
these sorts of implicit dependencies with limited success.
For me, I prefer just coming out as stating them. Honesty is the best
policy? :-)
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Boynes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:50 PM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Component
On Jul 14, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
What if we said eager init is a component type concept and is
true or false (specified on @Scope)? Then, run level is the SCDL
configuration of eager init. So, a component would be eager
initialized based on the component type info and would be
On Jul 14, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Hawkins, Joel wrote:
Hmmm. DS is really intended to deal with intra-bundle dependencies,
although there's really no reason it could be applied like you
describe.
In the DS spec, you would make the coupling explict by declaring
component B depended on component
On Jul 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 14, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Hawkins, Joel wrote:
Hmmm. DS is really intended to deal with intra-bundle dependencies,
although there's really no reason it could be applied like you
describe.
In the DS spec, you would make the coupling
12 matches
Mail list logo
