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
>
|
