Hi David, I think I see it a little differently. If we try to common up the headers, then we end up with a matrix of rules for which headers are allowed on which type of 'subsystem'. Take the example you gave below; for the three types of subsystem I described earlier, only the second type (Explicitly shared) would ever make statements about the services that are exported or imported. Types 1 and 3 have different rules for defaulting what is shared.
Regards, Graham. On 22 February 2010 10:24, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >> >
