Seems ok to me since we will only be extending and not disrupting what exists already. And extending too seems ok since we are adding in a substantial feature here - support for management functions.
- Venkat On 7/17/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, RuntimeComponent sounds good to me. I guess I wonder if extending the Lifecycle interface isn't over kill and then this would need to track all those intermediate states which i wonder if anyone is really interested in? The main reason I'm asking explicitly is these are interfaces we've said are in the stable SPI, so whats our policy on adding new methods? ...ant On 7/17/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > RuntimeComponent instead of Component is probably better to hold the > state. > > We might be able to reuse "org.apache.tuscany.sca.scope.Lifecycle.java" > (move to a different package) and have > "org.apache.tuscany.sca.runtime.RuntimeComponent.java" extend from it. > This > way, the management interface can find the corresponding RuntimeComponent > and then control the lifecycle of a componenent. > > Thanks, > Raymond > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "tuscany-dev" <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org> > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:00 PM > Subject: Add isStarted() to o.a.t.sca.assembly.Component? > > > > For TUSCANY-1379 it seems easy enough to start or stop a component but > > there > > doesn't seem to be any way to find if the current state of a Component > is > > started or stopped. Not sure if thats by design or not, what would > people > > think about adding an isStarted method to the Component interface? > > > > ...ant > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
