Hi Simon,

Not sure, I was wondering if the search capability can be extended
beyond components, services, references to the other artifacts in play
in a running application, e.g. policy sets. Maybe it takes account of
this already and I'm just not understanding properly. Also I'm not
suggesting this extension as a first stage just trying to understand
how it would be added in the future.

That is the idea, to index everything contained in a artifact which can be
searched in future ; )

Best Regards,
Adriano Crestani Campos

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>wrote:

> snip...
>
> >
> > By "Service/Reference/Component/Binding/Implementation/... " field I
> meant
> > multiple fields. In fact we would have separate field for service,
> > reference, component etc.
>
> OK
>
> >
> >> I'm asking as I'm attracted by the presentation example you give where
> >> you show an initial phrase search giving way to more targeted item
> >> based searches. A complexity of Tuscany is that it's based on number
> >> hierarchies and relationships, e.g.
> >>
> >> contribution import/export
> >> component type
> >> component promotion
> >> component wiring
> >> domain/node confguration
> >> intent and policy configuration
> >>
> >> Finding things can often mean searching through various, seemingly
> >> unrelated, files. This is particularly the case where policy is
> >> concerned.  It seems that you are solving this problem and I'm
> >> wondering what general provision can be made to extend the index
> >> beyond the original contribution object.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure if I'm getting you correctly. Do you mean having some
> general
> > index field instead of multiple fields for Service, Reference, Component
> > etc.?
> >
> >
>
> Not sure, I was wondering if the search capability can be extended
> beyond components, services, references to the other artifacts in play
> in a running application, e.g. policy sets. Maybe it takes account of
> this already and I'm just not understanding properly. Also I'm not
> suggesting this extension as a first stage just trying to understand
> how it would be added in the future.
>
> Simon
>

Reply via email to