I can not vote, but I say +1 for including it. Mark it up as broken, use a
@deprecated tag or move it to a scratchpad directory or *something*. It
provides functions for validating the lifecycle contracts and I think we
should not throw away the code.
I wrote in bugzilla that it should be renamed AbstractComponent. I did not
mean that it should implement all lifecycle methods, but rather provide a
"checkInitialized" method. It is not cruft - remember, the code of a class
only has one instance in the system and it is the data that is unique to
each instance. If there are too many methods, have a
validateLifecycle (int stage) throws IllegalStateException
with stage being INITIALIZE, COMPOSE, etc.:
public class SimpleComponent extends AbstractComponent implements Component,
Initializable {
public void initialize () throws Exception
{
validateLifecycle (INITIALIZE);
//do stuff
}
}
The setWriteOnceObject can be re-declared:
Object setWriteOnceObject (Object source, Object value, String message)
and used as
void compose (ComponentManager manager) {
this.manager = (ComponentManager) setWriteOnceObject (this.manager,
value, "Already set CM");
}
I do not see two methods which perform some very practical tasks as "cruft".
(Now if only Java supported multiple inheritance...)
/LS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: den 30 november 2001 19:32
> To: avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] ComponentUtil
>
>
> The following snippet is supposed to describe how ComponentUtil
> was envisioned
> to perform. Unfortunately, Java does not pass primitives by
> reference, but
> by value.
>
> public class SimpleComponent implements Component, Initializable {
> final int m_mask;
> int m_state = 0;
>
> public SimpleComponent()
> {
> m_mask = ComponentUtil.getMask(this);
> }
>
> public void initialize () throws Exception
> {
> ComponentUtil.checkInitialized(m_state);
>
> //do stuff
> }
> }
>
>
> If we do not like this usage pattern, then we should choose once
> and for all
> whether to provide it or not.
>
>
> Include ComponentUtil?
>
> Since it is broken and I really want to get Avalon Framework 4.1
> out the door,
> I vote -1, remove it.
>
> --
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
