Am 22.06.2011 um 10:35 schrieb Andre Merzky:
2011/6/22 Daniel Gruber <dgruber@univa.com>:
....
Why is the Monitoring session handled differently, i.e. has no name/open/destroy?
Monitoring session have no persistency, so they need no name for opening, and no destruction.
If something has a create, I would expect it to have a destroy, too. That might just be me, but semantically those two go together...
Anyway, your explanation helps!
It is a runtime object, IMHO even a singleton.
If it is a singleton which is already instantiated (e.g. by loading the library), then it is being opened, not created?
It's just a name, if this makes it easier to understand, then we could simply change it to open(). I can't see any argument against. Cheers, Daniel
Anyway, I begin to understand the model - much appreciated... One might want to make those things clearer in the spec though, as others will likely stumble over similar questions?
Cheers, Andre.
-- Nothing is ever easy...