| [CDO]: What's the general behaviour of Defs when attributes are changed? [message #426289] |
Mon, 22 December 2008 07:19  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Eike, Hi all!
I tied the packages attribute of the definition to its inner instance in
CDOPackageManagerDef (packages added to the def are passed to the
CDOPackageRegistry instance if it's already running). I now wonder
what's the general idea behind this. What wold this be applied to for
ex. CDOSession?
1) Would the CDOSession be deactivated and restarted with the new
connector is changed?
2) Or would it only matter as soon as the def is requested to deliver
its instance? it would deactivate the current instance, create a new one
and activate it?
I opt for the second approach.
To my opinion I'd like to stick to the 2nd approach in general. I
believe that stick to the same behaviour is what makes an API well
formed, it acts the way you are used to.
Any ideas on this?
|
|
|
| Re: [CDO]: What's the general behaviour of Defs when attributes are changed? [message #426302 is a reply to message #426289] |
Mon, 22 December 2008 12:40  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
André,
I would also prefer approach 2, at least initially. It is way simpler
and seems to cover the majority of use cases.
Approach 1 has more implications than obvious at a first glance: for
instance, the connector of a session could stay the same but its
dependencies could change (i.e. transitive dependencies)...
Cheers
/Eike
----
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
André Dietisheim schrieb:
> Hi Eike, Hi all!
>
> I tied the packages attribute of the definition to its inner instance
> in CDOPackageManagerDef (packages added to the def are passed to the
> CDOPackageRegistry instance if it's already running). I now wonder
> what's the general idea behind this. What wold this be applied to for
> ex. CDOSession?
>
> 1) Would the CDOSession be deactivated and restarted with the new
> connector is changed?
>
> 2) Or would it only matter as soon as the def is requested to deliver
> its instance? it would deactivate the current instance, create a new
> one and activate it?
>
> I opt for the second approach.
> To my opinion I'd like to stick to the 2nd approach in general. I
> believe that stick to the same behaviour is what makes an API well
> formed, it acts the way you are used to.
>
> Any ideas on this?
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02311 seconds
Home