Greg Dritschler wrote:
I have a question about changes that were made in revision 566649. This
revision changed the assembly model object interfaces so that they don't
extend IntentAttachPoint. The assembly model implementations now extend
IntentAttachPoint. As a consequence any code that wants to reference the
intents needs to check if the implementation object is an instance of
IntentAttachPoint and then cast it. Why was this done? I'm not saying it's
right or wrong, I just want to know the point of the change. It seems to
allow assembly model objects (implementations, bindings) to be created which
don't support intents. Is that a good thing?
Greg
I think it's a good thing :) The idea is as follows:
- Some bindings and implementation types will not support policies. For
example only some binding types will support confidentiality, only some
implementation types will support transactions. The policy framework
spec defines how to describe binding types and implementation types and
the policies that can be applied to them in definitions.xml. It's easy
to imagine that some binding or implementation types will not support
any policy.
- We can make the development of binding or implementation extensions
which don't support any policy simpler by not requiring them to
implement IntentAttachPoint and PolicySetAttachPoint.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
