On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I share the same concerns as Sebastien raised. Mixing the policy > definitions with tuscany runtime extensions in one file doesn't seem to be > right. For example, we could have two tuscany extensions to support > binding.ws, one is based on Axis2 while the other one is based on CXF. > With the current approach, we will see three files: > > definitions.xml for binding.ws bindingType which is independent of the > underlying ws stack > two META-INF/services/... files, one for binding-ws-axis2 and the other > for binding-ws-cxf > > With the new proposal, I cannot achieve the pluggability unless we > duplicate the bindingType info for binding.ws in two definitions.xml. > I don't think thats quite true, as Venkat said there can be multiple definitions files and they get merged together so its no problem at all for each extension to its on extension specific file. ...ant
