Daniel Dekany wrote:
Sunday, December 14, 2003, 5:34:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Break the rule about lifestyle transparency discussed above: theOk, sounds kind of good, now we need a mechanism to signal Service requirements to client code. I suggested elsewhere that those services just introduce their own interface ReleaseRequirement,
programmer who uses the object must know if the component returned for a
certain Role has to be explicitly released or not. For example, you say
that component returned for Role "databaseConnection" must be explicitly
released, always. This setting of the Role (i.e. if it requires manual
releasing or not) can't be changed later without breaking the user code,
and this has to be stated clearly.
(Here I would like to note that, IMO it would be better if "release
requirement" is bounds to the Role, and not the Service.)
Translating this to a computational defintion - what you saying is that it would be better that this criteria be expressed in metadata (e.g. in the block defintion) as opposed to metainfo (e.g. via an interface or xinfo descriptor).
If that's a correct translation - then I agree.
Stephen.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|------------------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin | | http://dpml.net/ | |------------------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
