Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:20:45 +0100
tor 2004-01-08 klockan 12.04 skrev Mark McLoughlin:
> Hi Richard,
> 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
> implicitly activated?
I don't know if that is necessary. If the client don't want the service
to be implicitly activated he can just do as it's currently done. Ie.
check if the service is running, and take actions from there.
I think it would be weird if the service can disable this since then you
can't count on it to work when writing your client so you would have to
make the checks anyway which kinda defeates the idea.
Mikael Hallendal firstname.lastname@example.org
Imendio HB http://www.imendio.com
Phone: +46 (0)709 718 918