Schaible, J�rg wrote:
Hi Peter,
Personally I think that is an ugly convention that I would highly recomend you never adopt. If your container can't guarentee proper lifecycle management your whole system is fubarred anyways and you can only stick so many fingers in holes of a leaky boat. Much better to fix the container.
This is my opinion also. Even more, the developers can omit all these tests resulting in a much cleaner code ... but less robust components.
The real solution here is a _common_container_compliance_specification_
Something which you can code against with solid confidence that the container will be doing things in accordance with a common spec. For example - what is the "standard avalon container responsibility" when handling the deployment of an object exposing the framework Executable interface?
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
