tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Laws" <simonsl...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Using contributions in the tutorial, was: Improving the store tutorial module structure
Date Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:39:57 GMT
On Jan 3, 2008 5:59 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:

> [snip]
> Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't resolution be associated with a contribution rather than a
> > composite contained within it?
> Resolution is performed against a set of installed contributions. It
> should be performed when it is assumed that all required contributions
> are available.
> When a composite is assigned to a node,
> > should the node find out which contribution it came from
> Yes
> and process all
> > composites and componentType files from the contribution?
> >
> - load in the node the contributions in the contribution dependency tree;
> - process only implementations and composites referenced by the
> composite deployed on the node.
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> And believe it or not this is pretty much what the domain tries to do. I'm
still left with the problem of how to deal with contributions that are added
to the domain in arbitrary orders. I just assume users add them in the
correct order at the moment and return the errors that happen if they don't.
Maybe this is where we need an "installed contribution" concept.

>From there I can walk the tree and present the contributions that are
required by a deployed composite to the node in the correct order. Not well
tested yet though.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message