On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Supporting both approaches provides all the flexibility we need and >> seems like it should make everyone happy. > > Yep, if we want to have a short, abstract URI that de-references a > config file for physical configuration then great. Would be > appropriate for the more complex configurations that have been > mentioned. If we want to extend the abstract URI with physcial > configuration then that would be great too. The runtime doesn't need > to go look up the info that is provided in the URI. > > Seems straightforward. > > Simon >
How about theres a properties file at a well known location that can map the domain names to the uri, and perhaps a system property to override the file location. If the properties file exists and the domain uri is in the properties file then its property value is used otherwise the uri is used as is. Would we want to do that mapping for just the SCAClientFactory domain URIs or also the domain URI used when creating a Node? ...ant ...ant
