Peter Donald wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have been playing with the idea of having Services as first class metadata
>objects. By this I mean it would be possible to load a ServiceInfo class. ie
>You could load both ComponentInfo and ServiceInfo objects. The ServiceInfo
>objects would contain metadata specific to the object.
>
>The advantages of this is that you associate metadata with a service
>independent of an implementation. So this would allow you to indicate that
>all implementations of this service are pass-by-value objects or support
>soap/altrmi bindings. It would also allow us to generate webpages for each
>service aswell as each component.
>
>
I like it.
It provides better seperation of a service defintions from
implementation defintions.
>Secondly, what do you think of having metadata about individual features in a
>service (ie methods/propertys). If we were to do that then we could pretty
>much model any of the various component systems out there. It would also get
>rid of a bunch of "extra" descriptors (like the mxinfo stuff in phoenix).
>However it adds a massive amount of overhead - what doyou think?
>
>
No immediate interest in doing this today.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
