Danny Angus wrote: > > My take on the container is that we it to just be there, support our > code, > > be free of memory leaks and crashes, and otherwise stay out > of our way. > > Agreed. And i don't normally pay it much attention, but with > people talking > about Merlin I wondered what your idea was.
As I understand it, different containers vary in thier depth of support for the Avalon lifecycle. As I remember from way back, we could dynamically modify configurations if the container supported the requisite, but optional, lifecycle methods - suspend, resume, reconfigure, etc. While I agree that we should be container neutral, it would be good to accomodate the extended, but optional, Avalon lifecycles into a reworked Mailet API so that it can be leveraged when available. -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
