On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Deepal jayasinghe <deep...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > 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 ;-) . Yes. In that case, changes for dispatching will not be needed. But deployment changes should be there. That's what I meant by a new patch. > > Second if you can see whether to create a new deployer to handle the > hierachical service, I also thought about writing a new deployer initially. But after some investigation, I found that this can be implemented in this manner without much trouble and minimum code changes. > then people who need that feature can use that, so > will not break anything. I'm sorry. But did we find any existing feature that is broken due to this improvement during this discussion? Thanks, ~Isuru
