Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release

Peter Donald wrote, On 13/03/2003 22.52:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:55, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 
>>Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>>>Get over. I have spent hours upon hours explaining this and wrote up
>>>several long emails and documents explaining this in the past. I have
>>>given oodles and oodles of links to both java and dot.net based
>>>approaches. What is it you find lacking in my previous explanations?
>>
>>possibly the lack of that list of links in the same message as the
>>veto.  
> 
> Go back to the veto and yoou will see the reason was 
> 
> "It is the same approach that has been done before and failed and can't 
> cleanly produce some aspects like delayed activation, passivation, 
> persistence, transaction demarcation, bifuricating interception etc."
> 
> which is still true and still justification for the veto. 

That code is not the solution to the aspects you define. It has not been 
made to solve them, so the lack of them is not a justification.

As for "done in the past", it's not a reason.

> When asked for my opinion on possible paths to fix I suggested that 
> interceptor pattern is the solution. I sent along a couple of links (as has 
> Leo) and that should be enough. If there is something missing then feel free 
> to ask questions after reading the links I have sent.

We are all interested in the interceptor mechanism, but it solves a 
different issue.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   [email protected]
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------