Legacy Issue Number: 3763
Source: med.uu.nl ( Philip Lijnzaad)
CosLifeCycle::LifeCycleObject, but BioSequence itself does not ?
Was this deemed to present too much constraints on BioSequence ?
The problem that Fabien Campagne <email@example.com> notes with this is
that a client of BioSequences can only call remove() on one of the
sub-classes, not on an un-extended BioSequence itself, nor on a different
sub-class that does not have a remove() operation (or maybe has it under a
different name or whatever).
He thinks this is bad design because without remove(), the client loose the
option of trying to be cooperative in the resource management of the
server. I have to agree on this point.
Or is inheriting from LifeCycleObject not there mainly of remove() ? In that
case, why the asymmetry between BioSequence and it's sub-class.
Reported: BSA 1.0b1 — Fri, 21 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
Disposition: Resolved — BSA 1.0
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT