On 10/30/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 10/30/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 10/30/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > If you've an SCANode that is already running (you've added composites > > and > > > started the node) and then you add additional composites there doesn't > > > > > seem > > > to be any way to start just those newly added composites. I can call > > > SCANode.start and that kind of works but it starts all the existing > > > already > > > started composites as well so makes a bit of a mess duplicated various > > > > > things. Is this something thats planed to be fixed or should I go > > ahead > > > and > > > add a way to do this? > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > Ant > > > > When we discussed the domain/node API a few weeks ago there was a > > suggestion that we restrict to the node so that there is no fine grained > > control over starting the individual artifacts that a node is > > responsible > > for. So the lifecycle is: > > > > create node > > add contributions > > add composites to domain (indicate which composites are to run) > > start composites > > stop composites > > remove contributions > > destroy node > > > > So you spend some time configuring the node then you start it. There > > have > > been some changes to the code recently but I believe this is how it > > works at > > the moment. I'm looking at the code now to get back up to speed. > > > > This is an issue for both nodes and domain. . > > > > Firstly, as you say, in the case where you are just working with a node > > you > > can't add a new contribution and start it once the node is running > > without > > doing a stop() to stop all the running components first and then a > > start() > > to restart everything. The benefit of this is at least it is a simple > > model > > but there may be unintended consequences of doing this. I haven't tried > > this > > yet with the new code changes but I will do shortly. > > > > Secondly, at the domain level we have provided a method for starting > > individually named composites. The intention here is that domain finds > > the > > node with the named composite and starts it there. This suffers from the > > same problem that you face if a contribution has more than one composite > > in > > it, i.e. subsequent composite start requests can target the same node. > > Again > > this should still work if the domain first stops the node and then > > starts > > it. > > > I'm not clear if thats saying that the intended design is that the only > way to add new contributions to an existing domain is by stopping and > restarting, or that this is just a limitation of the current code? >
Sorry typo in that, i meant node not domain, so: I'm not clear if thats saying that the intended design is that the only way to add new contributions to an existing node is by stopping and restarting, or that this is just a limitation of the current code? ...ant
