[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Activation design draft



tis 2004-01-20 klockan 21.22 skrev Havoc Pennington:

Hi,

> I think it should be pretty easy to add a message queue to
> PendingActivation along with the queue of waiting activators, but I
> could be wrong.

Yes, doing the implicit activation in the bus seems like the best idea.
Richard has been going deeper into designing and specifing what messages
will be passed and what types of errors should be sent during this
process.

> > Not sure which way is the better, or will this even be a problem?
> 
> I don't think it's a problem, since it's really OK if client D goes in
> the pending queue for B, and client C goes in a different pending queue
> for A, and both queues are cleared when executable E launches the first
> time. The second executable E to start then just exits when it fails to
> acquire its services.
>
> It has to work that way, since the user can also just manually launch
> the executable at any time, the bus isn't the only possible launcher.

That's true. OK, on a somewhat different thing. What do you feel about
having one .service file per service provided vs. having one service
files per executable that lists all services provided.

I don't think it matters much when it comes to implementing and code
complexity. Having all services in one file can help for the developer
of the service (not to have several .service files around). But it can
also be easier to just install a subset of the .service files if you for
example build with optional support for a certain service.

Does anyone have a strong feeling about this?

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal
-- 
Mikael Hallendal               micke imendio com
Imendio HB                     http://www.imendio.com
Phone: +46 (0)709 718 918




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]