Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 40105 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2001 13:51:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2001 13:51:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 2902 invoked by uid 97); 3 Dec 2001 13:51:00 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2875 invoked by uid 97); 3 Dec 2001 13:50:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2864 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2001 13:50:59 -0000 Message-ID: <3C0B83AA.1060303@apache.org> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 08:52:42 -0500 From: Berin Loritsch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: [PATCH/SUMBISSION] ComponentStateValidator (was RE: [VOTE][Patch] ComponentUtil) References: <200112021544.fB2FiUu16528@mail012.syd.optusnet.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Peter Donald wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 08:11, Michael McKibben wrote: > >>Okay, I've attached an implementation called ComponentStateValidator.java >>that basically does what ComponentUtil and AbstractComponent does. I didn't >>patch ComponentUtil because I noticed that it has been removed from the cvs >>tree. Feel free to move/rename it to whatever makes sense. >> > > kool - added it into Excalibur projects until it stabilizes. Keep it in Framework. When it is ready, we release. >>I was also thinking that maybe in the future this could be enhanced to >>switch off the validation, for example a static debug flag initialized via >>a property like >> > > That could work. WHats everyone think ? It could work, BUT just how much overhead is there with bit-tests? -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: