On Monday 15 December 2003 18:31, Daniel Dekany wrote:
> Monday, December 15, 2003, 2:19:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > public interface MyReleaseRequirement
> > {
> > void release();
> > }
> >
> > public interface MyService extends MyReleaseRequirement
> > {
> > // whatever
> > }
> I think this approach has some disadvantages (compared to what I have
> suggested):
Sorry, I don't even understand where (if) we disagree.
The lookup( ROLE ) returns an implementation of a service interface, and such
interface exposes the "Release Requirement" (suggested solution above).
You then carru on with a lot of words....
> - When the "release requirement" bound to the Role, you can use
> components of whatever lifestyle for that role, not only of lifestyle
> that actually need "release requirement". This gives better separation
> for implementation details. By declaring the Role as "has release
> requirement", you say that for this role you potentially want to use
> components that use on of these evil performance-optimized lifestyles,
> but you can still use any component implementations there. You have just
> allowed some extra lifestyles, such as "pooled", on the expense that you
> will try{...}finally{release}.
... which (IMHO) say nothing about how you actually want it to be done.
How (explicitly) would the client code get to know if the "ROLE" would
"potentially" be depending on release()?
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
