Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:04:35 +0000
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 19:11, Richard Hult wrote:
> tis 2003-12-23 klockan 15.08 skrev Richard Hult:
> > * Implicit activation (optionally activate a service automatically when
> > messages are sent to it)
> Are there any objections against this item? The TODO lists "automatic
> activation", which I think refers to the same thing.
> It would make writing clients more convenient, and shouldn't be that
> much work to get right (basically an auto-activate flag for messages and
> a list of pending messages for each pending activation in the bus).
It sounds like a great idea, but I wonder should the client be able to
disable it, or should the service be able to flag that it shouldn't be