Perhaps we should key off a name other than the file name, to allow ease of configuration from non file sources (necessary when dealing with components).
Makes sense to me in general though. On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 11:34, Aaron Smuts wrote: > There can be one unconfigured I guess and other that match the name of the > file. > > If you call configure it will return the defualt. > > If you pass in a configuration file name to configure, it will give you the > preconfigured instance that matches that name. > > Aaron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:17 AM > > To: Turbine JCS Developers List > > Subject: Re: cache hub > > > > I like the idea of being able to have more than one. We can still > > provide a service or component interface that allows singletonesque > > access. > > > > On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 11:05, Aaron Smuts wrote: > > > > > > Early on someone complained about how you could one have one instance of > > the > > > hub. I'm starting to think that is it a bad idea. > > > > > > It seems like you should be able to have as many instances as > > configuration > > > files. This could cause problems though. > > > > > > I'm not sure. > > > > > > One reason is that it isn't possible to create unit tests for the > > lateral > > > auxiliary otherwise. > > > > > > I need two instances of the same region with differently configured > > lateral > > > caches. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-jcs-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-jcs-dev- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
