I'll respond to this in two separate replies as there are two things you're asking about.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> > I'm puzzled as well with the logic in stop(), which now calls node.stop() + > factory.stop() + removeFromDomainLevelComposite(). For me starting / > stopping components in nodes is really orthogonal to adding / removing > composites to / from the domain. > The stop command has three variations depending on the arguments: 1) stop contributionURI compositeURI 2) stop contributionURI 3) stop In (1) that will stop a running composite which is the same as the stop command you had with the difference that your original start command could give the deployed composite a label like "nodeA" and then use that label on the stop. The old start used the composite qname this one uses the composite uri and that matches the operations describe in the spec, and when using start contributionURI composite URI you don't really need another label for that. We could add the other way too i guess, is that something you feel strongly about? The (2) format stops a contribution and all its running composites, (3) stops everything and shuts down the shell which is the same as your 'bye' command, the bye command is still there doing the same as the noarg stop. Are you sayng you'd prefer the noarg stop command is removed and only have bye? > I think we should revert back to specific parameters on the command methods, > like you still have on start() instead of just a list of toks like you now > have on stop(). Passing the list of toks defeats the purpose of the eval() > method. > Seems like an implementation detail but fine. Passing in toks made it easy to handle optional arguments but either approach is ok by me. ...ant
