Sylvain Wallez wrote:
The contract of a block should be services identified by their URI, and not files at well-known locations (even if these 'files' are in fact produced by a pipeline).
<snip/>
By considering blocks as pipeline services, we really achieve true
polymorphism for blocks, because we totally abstract the way their
contracts are implemented.
[note that all the above isn't in fact block-specific and can be made
today inside a single sitemap]
Gotcha!
What can I say: I agree!
Yeah :/ well, you know, you were next on my list anyway :)
After this we had a long conversation about the semantics to be used to identify which part of a pipeline we want the caller to use, which
unfortunately fell flat because I wasn't able to make you understand my thoughts. I'd like someday to have the luck Carsten had recently to meet you for real. Too bad the GetTogether is the same week as the ApacheCon :-(
Ah, BTW, I'm going to be travelling a lot in the next month or so, I'll post a schedule so that if anybody is around and want to have a beer and talk geek, I'm game.
Anyway, let's forget for now these syntactic problems. The importantGood, I like it. Care to edit the version 1.2 of that document to show us what you mean also syntactically? I think that would help a lot.
thing above is that a block should provide services by means of pipeline URIs and not resources.
How do you envision this to happen? Can you come up with a real need for such a thing? Just checking you are designing by parallel here. In fact, I added inheritance after I noticed that one of my customers I did consulting for had a problem that could be solved wonderfully with block inheritance (mostly, it was block personalization for different customers).> The best solution is to allow my block to explicitly "extend" that > block and inherits the resources that it doesn't contain. Side note : we must not forget to allow a block to call services/resources of its parent block (like a "super" call in Java).
Also, how do you make this happening? something like
<map:call resource="block:parent://whatever/service"/>
would that be enough? could that be harmful or provide security concerns?
Hmmm, not sure.> TODO > ---- > > 1) blocks should allow to depend on 'ranges' of behavior versions. > Let's try to come up with a way to describe those ranges effectively. IIRC, there's something in Avalon to handle this.
Here is a possible syntax for versioning ranges of block behaviors:
1.3 -> matches version 1.3 only
1.x -> matches all minor versions of the first major version
1.(3-8) -> matches from version 1.3 to 1.8 included
1.(3-x) -> matches all versions higher than 1.3 and lower than 2.0
which can also be applied to block versions
1.3.340 -> matches bugfix 130 of minor version 3 and major version 1
1.3.(48-x) -> matches from bugfix 48 on
NOTE: multiple ranges are semantically meaningless, for example
(2-3).(3-x)
since there is no semantic correlation between the same minor versions if done on different major generations. Or, at least, there should be none.
So, if you say:
this block implements http://myblocks.org/pdf/2.(3-x)
you are infact indicating that your block implements all 2.x versions of the behavior starting from 2.3 and up to 3.0 excluded.
Ok. I hope this time this notion of "pipeline services" will go further and that we will solve the misunderstanding we had 4 months ago...Yeah, I think it will. Last time you threw in the syntactic concern hoping that others understood the semantic concern underneath it, but this time is definately clearer :)
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
