+1. Can the static policy benifit from allowing a XML complient to policy asertion xsd there. Usecase i can think of is scenarios like Meta data exchange/Policy, where module description itself defines the assertions that it can support. May be Sanka could shed some light on how this might become useful for policy, if at all. Thanks Chathura
On 1/23/06, Ajith Ranabahu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 for the proposal > But do we need to allow "Any XML junk" ? I mean string would be fine for a > description rather than XML > > > On 1/24/06, Ruchith Fernando < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 to the description element > > > > Thanks, > > Ruchith > > > > On 1/24/06, Chamikara Jayalath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +1. Thats a nice feature. > > > > > > Chamikara > > > > > > > > > On 1/23/06, Deepal Jayasinghe < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all; > > > > > > > > Module author should be able to tell small description about his > module > > > implementation and currently we are not support that. As an example > module > > > author should be able to tell about the spec that the module has > implemented > > > and its version and etc.. , So I like to have decryption element in > > > module.xml (same as service decryption in services.xml ) , when it come > to > > > module versioning having decryptions is very useful. > > > > > > > > <description> > > > > Any XML junk or just string can go here > > > > </description> > > > > > > > > comments ..... > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Deepal > > > > > > > > ................................................................ > > > > ~Future is Open~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Ajith Ranabahu -- Chathura Herath http://chathurah.blogspot.com/
