On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > Please see my comments inline. > > Thanks, > Raymond > >> Is there a reason this new code is in the old implementation-node module? >> Its configuring the Node and comparable to the way we do model and XML >> processors of extensions so seems more natural to just put it in the >> node-api/impl modules. > > I was just lazy to use the "implementation-node" module. We'll have to find > a module for it. The interfaces for the configuration can potentially go to > the node-api to allow the node to be configured programmatically. > >> A node can have multiple deployable composites so this would need to >> support that. > > There are a few cases: > > 1. The contribution contains META-INF/sca-contribution.xml (or > sca-contribution-generated.xml) that defines a list of deployable > composites. > 2. The contribution contains a set of composite files but there is no > META-INF/sca-contribution.xml (the composite files can potentially be used > by deployable composites from other contributions, including a deployment > composite that is attached to a contribution) > 3. A deployment composite is defined to the contribution. > > For 1, the deployable composites should be honored by default. If we want to > override that, we should probably use the "deployment composite" in case 3. > For 2, I don't think we should treat the composites as deployable. > For 3, a deployment composite should be treated as deployable and it > overrides the META-INF/sca-contribution.xml. > > BTW, for a node, should we allow the attachments of more than one deployment > composite to a single contribution? Should we allow multiple deployment > composites > to attach to multiple contributions? > >> Is there really a use case for a Base URIs per binding? If not then i >> think we should leave this off here for now. How the base uri works is >> always causing problems, we've a work item to sort it out in 2.x, and it >> doesn't work properly in 2.x right now anyway. So it seems like it would be >> better to not preempt how we fix it by including it here till we know whats >> going to happen. > > I agree with Simon's explanation. It should be baseURI per protocol per > binding per node. A binding may support more than one protocols such as http > and https. The <binding> element is optional. If there is no specified > baseURI, then a default one from the binding should be used. > > > ...ant >
Ok great, i'd be happy with all that. ...ant
