Maybe there should be a factory that manages the hub instances.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Smuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:35 AM
> To: Turbine JCS Developers List
> Subject: RE: cache hub
>
> 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]>
