polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kent Sølvsten <kent.soelvs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bug in Assembly??
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2015 10:19:27 GMT
What about something like

(1) @Activators can be declared either on composites or mixins (today
only on composites)
(2) As as side-effect, both a composite or a mixin may implements
ServiceActivation with the desired effect (just syntactical sugar around
@Activators)
(3) Initializable could be changed to be syntactical sugar around
@Activators - so may be used both on composites or mixins

Open question: Can ObjectFactory#newObject in any meaningful way be
changed to use @Activators instead of Initializable?
I guess not, since the destruction methods would never be invoked, thus
potentially leading to confusion.

/Kent


Den 12-11-2015 kl. 09:52 skrev Paul Merlin:
> Niclas Hedhman a écrit :
>> Ok, naming might be an issue, but there is a deeper one.
>>
>> Is it correct that the ServiceActivation.activateService() is called on the
>> ServiceComposite and not each Mixin implementing it??
> Correct.
>
>> Just like Initializable was changed to be called on the Mixin, instead of
>> the Composite, I think a similar lifecycle method pair is needed for
>> Services. Otherwise it is really hard to make very generic Mixins that
>> works independently of the whole ServiceComposite.
>>
>> Lifecycle is another interface with these semantics for entities.
> Makes sense. Could you please capture that in a JIRA?
>
> Cheers
>
> /Paul
>


Mime
View raw message