Hi Saminda
Registry definition just provide a URL, impl class and a bunch of
parameters to connect to the registry right. So, IMHO it doesn't
matter whether the registry is remote or local, we should be able to
use the same syntax to access them otherwise IMO it would be pretty
complex for a user.
Exactly! So the idea is that a user should be able to talk to "a"
registry and get everything done. This registry may just be totally
local to the configuration, totally remote or a mix of the two. Going on
these same lines, think of a registry that is able to talk to more than
one other (remote) registry.. like cascading registries! In Synapse this
could all be hidden. You will define your registry implementation and
configuration parameters, and all "key"s will be resolved by this
registry. The fact that some local resource definitions may override a
few remote ones would thus not be a problem.
On your earlier email:
In synapse.xml for configuring proxies or others , for elements, if
the name contains virtually multiple words, it has been written as
<foo-bar/>. When it comes to attributes it's written as carMar. IMHO,
if it can be given as <foo-bar car-mar="something"/> wouldn't this be
easy to user to remember, Or <fooBar carMar="something"/>, rather
mixing the way we write element and attribute names ?
Yes, Agreed.. lets get this cleaned up along with the other refactoring
that we are doing right now.
thanks
asankha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
