On 2/26/07, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ruwan <synapse> > <registry> > <parameter ..... remote registry definition > parameters........ />* > <registry-entry key="string" [src="url"]> string? | > <inline-xml/>? <registry-entry/>* > </registry>? > <proxy-service name="string" [transports="(http |https |jms > )+|all"]>.... </proxy-service>* > <sequence ....>+ > <endpoint ...>* > </synapse> Got the point.. and I am ok with this..... But why do we need registry-entry inside registry-entry???? Its not registry-entry inside registry-entry, but registry-entry also pushed under the main <registry> definition tag, which we will have anyway..
This is remote registry right? What about the local registry???? Are we going to have two registry tags one for the remote and another for the local inside which we declare registry entries.....? ....
> introduce another sequence named "error" (or something better if someone > > would like to propose) that will get called on any un-handled error > conditions. Yes... a big +1. how about the name "fault" for the error sequence.. Yes, fault would be good! asankha --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Ruwan Linton http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
