Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:42 +0600, Deepal Jayasinghe wrote:
Hi all;
+1 for proposal ,
But I have some comments ,
rather than introducing new description file I like to have service.xml
insider archive file and which root element can either be <service> or
<services> , if the root element is <service> I will create
ServiceGroupDescription by giving archive name as group name and the group
only contain one service. In the other hand if the root element is
<services> ServiceGruopDescription will be created by giving archive name as
Service Group name and all the service in service.xml will belong to that
service group.
+1, but how about a slight variation: s/service.xml/services.xml/.
That makes it slightly clearer - so we're not introducing an additional
description file but rather just renaming the current one.
Only bad thing is we'd be changing what we've had so far .. OTOH adding
service groups is a significant new function. In any case, I can live
with either name.
+1, but I'd suggest a more distinctive name - how about
service-group.xml? I think that would reduce the chance of user errors
from misreading one name as the other.
- Dennis
