BSA 1.0 NO IDEA Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

BSA — why no CosLifeCycle::LifeCycleObject for BioSequence ?

  • Key: BSA-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3763
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ( Philip Lijnzaad)
  • Summary:

    CosLifeCycle::LifeCycleObject, but BioSequence itself does not ?

    Was this deemed to present too much constraints on BioSequence ?

    The problem that Fabien Campagne <> 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
  • Disposition Summary:


  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT