aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Charters <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Applications and subsystems
Date Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:04:09 GMT
I'd been thinking the different sets of manifest.  I think the way
these types of subsystems will be used will be quite different and
subsystem definitions will typically not morph from one type to
another.  It therefore seems to make sense to emphasise the

On 19 February 2010 15:01, Guillaume Nodet <> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 15:00, Graham Charters <> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> I think what we have so far is the basics of 3.  We should aim for
>> consistency across all three, but I think the sharing policy defaults
>> need to remain separate.  If we were to choose just one policy, then
>> we will force the others into expressing a lot of unnecessary
>> information.  We could broaden Application to cover all three, but I
>> think that would be confusing.  Maybe there are other forms of
>> subsystem for the different sharing policies, where each is
>> specialized for the useful defaults.
> I agree with having different default policies.  What do you have in
> mind as to identify those different use cases from a user point of
> view ?  Are you thinking about completely different set of manifest
> headers ? Or simply one which would contain the "kind" of
> application/subsystem defined ?
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog:
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA

View raw message