On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:48 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
So if we did do that the commands could be something like the following: help install <domain> [<uri>] <contributionURL> [-norun -metadata <url> -duris <uri,uri,...>] installed <domain> [<contributionURI>] remove <domain> <contributionURI> addDeploymentComposite <domain> <contributionURI> <contentURL> printDomainLevelComposite <domain> start <domain> <curi> <compositeUri> status <domain> [<curi> <compositeUri>] stop <domain> [<curi> <compositeUri>] bye Any comments/alternatives/updates on that? ...ant
