Glyn, The interfaces will be defined in such a way that versioning is always assumed, it is just that our default implementation of a config provider will basically ignore versioning. In other words the config provider does not want to implement versioning the default implementation (which should be inherited) will take care of that, and if config provider supports versioning it'll override the default implementations of interface methods.
I agree that Engine does not have to make any choices. For the Engine it is always the config interfaces that we define. They will always assume versioning. Like EngineConfigurationProvider.getConfig(versionStamp) and .getCurrentVersionStamp(). It's just that some simple EngineConfigurationProviders may choose to not care about the versionStamp parameter and return a blank string as a current version stamp. -- Igor Sedukhin .. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788 -----Original Message----- From: Glyn Normington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Subsystem responsibilities: WSDD Igor, You wrote: >Another important element is to allow config providers to implement or >not to implement versioning. Then the engine would have to be able to cope correctly with both kinds of providers and so it would be worse off than today. I think it would be much better if all providers supported versioning so the engine has a single scheme to deal with. Glyn
