|
From: Rod J. <rod...@in...> - 2004-03-24 06:59:49
|
I agree there's no prototype instance for what we do, but the effect is the same. I think we should keep "prototype" and clarify non-singleton. Regards, Rod ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Sampaleanu" <col...@ex...> To: <spr...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:21 AM Subject: [Springframework-developer] Singleton vs. Prototype, appropriateness of the latter as a name > I was doing a bit of proofing in the manual during a deploy, and was > thinking that to me, it seems to me to be appropriate to call singleton > beans singletons, but the name prototype as used in the manual for > non-singletons is not really appropriate. A prototype, as used in the > Gang of Four book, and as I would think if it just based on what that > word means > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prototype > is a bean or object that exists, and is used as a prototype for creating > new objects, that is, the new objects are essentially copies of it. In > our case though, that's not a fair description; all we have is a bean > definition which is used to create new instances. > > Nitpicking, maybe, but I suggest that when we talk about this and > document this, we talk about beans being deployed in singleton and > non-singleton modes (or as singletons and non-singletons), and leave it > at that. > > Regards, > Colin > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of > GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system > administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Springframework-developer mailing list > Spr...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer > |