>> > > Right. My interpretation of the spec is that a policy set that is > externally attached to an element via any means results in ignoring > any directly attached policy sets. That would include the case where a > policy set is attached and then flowed down to another element.
Yep, I'm with you there. > But, > regardless of how you interpret that, there's still an issue with the > current code in that it will allow a directly attached policy set to > remain as long as it has an attachTo attribute -- even if it doesn't > actually attach to anything. Yeah, also isn't it the case that, as it's not actually checking what the attachTo refers to, it could be throwing away the directly attached policy when it's not required to do so? > > Brent > >> Thoughts? >> >> Simon >> >> -- >> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org >> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >> >
