"Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Eike Stepper wrote: > > > hi, > > > > i'd like to bring that topic back to your attention: > > > > am i really forced to carry a resolved proxy of a > > transient component as long as i want the component > > be prevented from disposal? > > Lets get back to an underlying question. The transient lifestyle is > intended for create-use-forget style components - however - everything > seems to indicate that your using transients in order to achieve some > specific objective. Can you fill me in?
hmm, your counter question makes me suspicious again ;-) is there another big concept that i 'm missing? i thought it's quite natural to have singleton classes like let' say a SessionManager. but it's even more natural to have many non-singleton classes (you call them transient) like a Session. it's most vital for most abstractions to simultaneously have multiple instances with different states. if i want such an abstraction to be implemented as a component, i have to declare it transient, do i not? /eike > > now i have come several times to a point where i register > > a component with a registry so that is strongly reachable. > > sometimes it's quite natural to do this from inside the component > > to be registered. but when i use the this-pointer for registration > > it is not considered to be a strong ref to the original proxy, > > which in turn will order component disposal. the actual time > > of disposal may be very late and has no obvious relation with > > the assignment of the this-pointer or removal of the original stack > > frame. this kind of error is hard to discover. > > > > is there anything i can do against it? > > > > /eike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
