On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Brent Daniel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Simon Laws
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Brent Daniel wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Simon Laws
>>> wrote:
>>>
> 1) Should we be raising an error at build time when intents
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Brent Daniel wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Simon Laws
>> wrote:
>>
1) Should we be raising an error at build time when intents aren't
satisfied by some policy set?
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>
>>
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Brent Daniel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
>
>>> 1) Should we be raising an error at build time when intents aren't
>>> satisfied by some policy set?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>
> OK. I've been working with these changes locally and will commit th
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
>> 1) Should we be raising an error at build time when intents aren't
>> satisfied by some policy set?
>
> Yes
>
OK. I've been working with these changes locally and will commit them soon.
>> 2) If yes, how do we make sure extensions are consid
Hi Brent
First pass comments in-line. I'll have a run through the actual tests
in question and make some more sensible comments shortly.
Simon
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Brent Daniel wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been taking a look at POL_4001 and have a few questions. The
> intention of the test i
Hi,
I've been taking a look at POL_4001 and have a few questions. The
intention of the test is to verify that directly attached policy sets
are ignored when externally attached policy sets are present. As far
as I can tell, the Tuscany runtime doesn't attempt to handle this at
the moment. It see
