On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
>
> This patch actually starts fixing things, but doesn't break the build
> neither compromises functionality (checked it already), but I would like
> someone (Craig/Remy/Amy/Glenn...) to review it and, if ok, apply it...
>
I do have two design quibbles:
* The initialize() method you added throws LifecycleException, but you
are not using the remainder of the Lifecycle family of APIs. This is
not particularly clean, and the obvious answer would be to extend
pre-start() support in the Lifecycle interface itself. However, this
would require changes to roughly 50 classes -- way too big to do
at this point in 4.0, so let's plan on that refactoring in 4.1.
* I like symmetry :-), so shouldn't there also be some sort of
shutdown() method that is called after stop() that corresponds to
initialize() being called before start()?
I'll be playing with the actual code itself today.
> Cheers...
>
> Pier (back from the cops)
>
>
>
Craig
