I think that summarizes the points of discussion/contention. I'm not
sure that you were convinced about a particular point, so let's make
sure that JIRAs/spec issues are opened as appropriate. You
mentioned spec issue 44, which I believe is surfacing and attempting
to resolve all the points but the last. If you disagree, then let's get the
issues opened.
IMHO, the last point seems to be outside the scope of SCA. The
owners of two different runtime implementations are certainly free
to collaborate on the infrastructure to make this happen. I don't think
the spec would have to say anything about it.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Why do we need binding.sca?
On Sep 26, 2006, at 12:01 PM, scabooz wrote:
Jeremy,
We need to bring these threads back together. Mike's comments
further reinforce the concepts.
Agreed. If I can summarize:
* the current need for <binding.sca> is to support rare cases of
overrides
* most assemblies will not need it at all
* _default_ is a bad term for a binding, but better than other
options so far :-)
* we have spec issues pertaining to promotion (specifically issue 44)
* we need to examine federated configurations, especially multi-
vendor ones
Did I miss anything?
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
