I'm not entirely sure what you're thinking yet, could you maybe give us an example?
I would imagine that configuration entities with the same meaning would be configured in the same way across the different types. So you define the services that you're exporting using the same header/tag, whether this is a subsystem or an application. Or do you see this differently? Best regards, David On 19 February 2010 16:04, Graham Charters <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > distinction. > > On 19 February 2010 15:01, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 15:00, Graham Charters <[email protected]> >> 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: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> Open Source SOA >> http://fusesource.com >> >
