On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:00, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > 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? > > Hmmm. I presume you are speaking of mxinfo stuff. > > What about using the afformentioned attribute to flag a Service > as a management interface. From that point, all the mxinfo > stuff would be redundant because all the methods would be assumed > to be purposed for exposure to management.
Thats not the hard bit. I am already enabling an interface to be marked as a management interface via "mx:enabled=true". The problem is that I need to get the descriptions of each operation, attribute and parameter which is not possible without a more detailed metadata specification. -- Cheers, Peter Donald -------------------------------- These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. -------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
