> > Yes exactly. That can be done. We can use some other charactor like > '-' to represent '/' charactors in the service name. That will avoid > most of the logics I've added to properly handle this. I can resend a > pathc using '-' if we can agree on that. > Then you do not need to anything ? I mean no code changes for dispatching ;-) . Second if you can see whether to create a new deployer to handle the hierachical service, then people who need that feature can use that, so will not break anything.
- Re: Supporting hierarchical serv... Amila Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical serv... Sanjiva Weerawarana
- Re: Supporting hierarchical serv... Isuru Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical serv... Amila Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical serv... Isuru Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical service deployment Isuru Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical service deployment Deepal jayasinghe
- Re: Supporting hierarchical service deploymen... Isuru Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical service deplo... Deepal jayasinghe
- Re: Supporting hierarchical service d... Isuru Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical serv... Deepal jayasinghe
- Re: Supporting hierarchical serv... Isuru Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical service deployment Isuru Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical service deployment Amila Suriarachchi
- Re: Supporting hierarchical service deployment Deepal jayasinghe