Bug #52
State model/checking for modifications on InRouteConfigurators required
| Status: | New | Start date: | 08/19/2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Due date: | ||
| Assignee: | - | % Done: | 0% | |
| Category: | C++ | |||
| Target version: | - |
Description
Right now subscriptions on the router are passed to the port even if both are not activated. For the spread port this e.g. results on a call on the uninitialized connection right now and would need complex caching.
History
#1 Updated by S. Wrede over 13 years ago
Could be fixed by State pattern implementation for active objects.
#2 Updated by J. Wienke about 13 years ago
- Assignee changed from S. Wrede to J. Moringen
Jan, is this still a valid problem with the current implementation?
#3 Updated by J. Moringen about 13 years ago
Although we no longer have a Subscription class, the issue still persists for adding/removing Filters/Handlers to InRouteConfigurators. To resolve this, we probably need to do three things
- Specify acceptable method call sequences (or maybe use a state-centric terminology instead)
- Add test cases
- Enforce these constraints in the InRouteConfigurator implementation
#4 Updated by J. Wienke about 13 years ago
- Subject changed from Router should only allow subscriptions after being activated to State model/checking for modifications on InRouteConfigurators required
- Assignee deleted (
J. Moringen)
#5 Updated by J. Wienke over 10 years ago
From a user perspective this does not have any practical relevance anymore since all participants are now activated with their constructor. Should we drop this issue until someone stumbles across a real problem?