commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [daemon] Moving to commons proper
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2002 23:39:19 GMT
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <>
>>Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <>
>>>>I think that apart from the discussion going on about interfaces, the
>>>>fact that Daemon would use introspection instead of an interface would
>>>>be a *feature*, not a hack to keep Costin or me happy.
>>>In what way? I feel that I must be really dense.
>>>If Daemon has one or more methods that are going to be called, why can
> they
>>>not be declared in an interface?
>>Wrong question.
>>I mean that id Daemon can launch an existing class without having to
>>implement any interface, I would see this as a welcome feature.
> OK, so thats fine (slowly getting there!). I guess what your driving at is
> that a class shouldn't need to say 'I can be started by Daemon'.

Exactly :-)

> But there
> is still the question of methods other than main. If they _are_ to be
> reflected, what defines the method names that will be looked for? I would
> argue that having the interface gives you somewhere to define the method
> names, what they do and when they will be called, even if the method names
> can be called by reflection.

Define them in the Daemon, as modifiers (see below).

> Or is this optional interface design being considered anyway?

If you can make it run by just having me telling him what are the method 
names in my class that correspond with his needed methods, I'd be reall 
happy :-)

   // unneeded, atomatically searches for "stop"

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message