PATCH: Implicit activation

[Richard Hult]

Hi,

mån 2004-03-15 klockan 20.20 skrev Havoc Pennington:

> Here's a question: should auto activation be the default?
> 
> I haven't thought about this much.

Good question, I don't really have an opinion on that, it could be
convenient.

> Regarding the check for autoactivation on the bus driver or NULL, is it
> really necessary to check that or could we just ignore it? After all
> it's fine to autoactivate a service that's already running.

I agree, we should ignore it. It was originally put in the design doc to
help catch errors, but it's not really an error. I took it out again.

> The patch looks good to me at this point as long as a spec change
> documenting the flag and semantics goes in at the same time.
> Specifically need to document that the message to the autoactivated
> service is blocked until the service activates or fails to activate, and
> that in addition to the normal error replies to the blocked message you
> can get an activation failure error.

Thanks, committed with updated spec.

What are your plans regarding the next release? There are some useful
fixes and additions in CVS now so getting a release out would be really
great.

/Richard

-- 
Richard Hult                    richard at imendio.com
Imendio                         http://www.imendio.com