My primary concern about introducing this aspect configuration to component level is it complicates the language. From a configuration perspective my main argument is we should clearly separate functionalities. This preserves the conceptual integrity of components. For example mediators should only think about how to mediate messages. Having them to configure about statistics or tracing may take the focus away from what they really do. Weather to trace a sequence or collect statistics for a sequence is a decision taken by the whole system.
For me aspect is a separate quality about a component. So I think it is better to keep it separate. I know I'm the only person against making the aspect configuration to the component level :). But I still think we shouldn't put it to the component level. Thanks, Supun.. On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Hubert, Eric <eric.hub...@foxmobile.com>wrote: > Eric, the issue in the synapse configuration language is that you do > not have a section which declares the sequences to do this, sequences, > endpoints, proxies and all local entries are on the same XML depth and there > is no chance to specify this configuraiton as you explained. If we had a > <sequences> tag enclosing all the sequence definitions, this would have been > the ideal approach, but it is not the case :-( > > My bad – you are right. Sequences can also be defined in different > places, including inline in proxies etc. I should have looked at the actual > configuration – it looked different in my memories. ;-) > -- Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc http://wso2.org supunk.blogspot.com
