Re: [Aglets-developer] Suspend-listener?

[Sebastian F. <Seb...@un...>]

Thomas Calivera <ald...@ne...> writes:

> If I am following this portion of the thread correctly, I think you
> are correct when you say it is not a good idea to have differently
> named deactivate methods for each variation of
> deactivation. However, your idea of deactivation to different kinds
> of media is intriguing. Exploring the idea, is it perhaps a useful
> feature for a context to deactivate its agents to *different* media
> depending on codebase, classname, and signer of the deactivating
> agent? Does it make sense to put this in a context's configuration
> file so that, in terms of method calls, you are simple doing a plain
> deactivate, but, depending on your storage preferences, as
> interpreted form the configuration file, the agent is deactivated in
> a manner and to a medium you prefer for that particular agent?

Sounds like an even better idea...

The configuration file should only define a default strategy

e.g., deactivate(x>10000) -> deactivate-to-disk
      deactivate(x<10000) -> deactivate-to-memory.

The deactivate method depending on signer and codebase would be a nice
security feature -> you store critical agents on a secure medium such
as a smartcard.

However, it might be useful for the programmer to add new strategies,
even one way strategies such as "deactivate-to-printer". Maybe this
should not be called deactivate but "archive-to-printer".

Regards,
  -Sebastian Fischmeister