On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:02 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:25 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thats all very useful but i think its a slightly different topic - one >> thing that was wanted here was a way to create an isolated Node >> instance thats _not_ part of any domain, so yes there's lots of >> different ways we can have for building a domain but don't have any >> API for creating standalone Nodes. >> >> ...ant >> > > What's the difference of a Domain with a single node and a standalone > node that's _not_ part of any domain ? > >
For practical purposes not so much. Each domain would need its own unique name but if thats ok then it seems like a fine way to do it to me. I don't yet quite really understand the purpose of the "node name" label when starting composites as discussed in [1] but if each node is really in its own domain i wonder if "node name" could be replaced with "domain name" and then a user can have started composites each in their own domain or have multiple composites in the same domain if they choose. ...ant [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/vznaimmhc7jfxtj2
