Hi, There is a phase in the policy fwk impl that needs to validate attachment points for the intents attached (or specified) in them. A PolicyIntent definition has a 'constrains' attribute that lists the valid attachment points (bindings / implementations) for an intent. This list is a list of QNames that point to bindingtypes or implementation types such as binding.wsor implementation.java.
Having said that, presently I am doing this sort of validation during the build phase. For example I am looking into each binding instance, getting the list of intents attached to it and then for each intent I want to look up the 'constrains' attribute to see if it lists the 'bindingtype' of the binding instance in question. But then, where do I get the bindingType given the binding instance ? To support this, seems like we could had a QName field to the Binding and Implementation abstractions to represent the BindingType and ImplementationType respectively. As per the extension model section in the AssemblySpecs it does seem like every implementation and binding extension does 'need' to define implementation and bindingType elements and I have already implemented abstractions for these elements in the Policy module. References : Pg 5 of Policy Fwk specs, Pg 60 and Pg 62 of Assembly Model specs. Thoughts ? Thanks - Venkat
