On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Raymond Feng<[email protected]> wrote: > Comments inline. > > Thanks, > Raymond > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Simon Laws" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:27 AM > To: "tuscany-dev" <[email protected]> > Subject: [2.x] modules/endpoint structure and naming > >> This is motivated by me wanting to run different itests with different >> versions of the endpoint registry. >> >> I want to split the endpoint registry implementation out of >> modules/endpoint and call it endpoint-registry-local > > Why don't we just move the local endpoint registry into core as the default > implementation. We have quite a few cases like this: a built-in > implementation of the "System Utility" is provided and they can be replaced > by adding an extension module (with higher ranking).
OK, we can follow that pattern if you like. > >> >> Based on this I would then rename endpoint-tribes to be >> endpoint-registry-tribes. We could have other implementations based on >> this pattern. > > Maybe we can even name it as "tuscany-distributed-tribes". Not so keen on this as it's not clear what tuscany-distributed means precisely. > >> >> That would leave endpoint with just EndpointReferenceBuilder. Which is >> there currently as it's pluggable. I suggest we leave it as is until >> we have the binding and policy match part done. We may then we able to >> move it elsewhere. > > IMO, it should go into core too. Yep, OK with that. If we are going for the "default implementation" pattern for the endpoint registry then that fits here also. Simon
