On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:20:23AM -0800, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Eric Schrock <eric.schrock at sun.com> [2008-12-17 19:08]: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:33:03AM -0800, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > > > > It's different than it was, but I'm not sure it's more complicated. > > > In the interest of giving Mark source material, here's what I've done > > > a few times now. > > > > Having just gone through this, I don't agree at all - if you want > > anything close to the ON gate. > > That's fair; my recent work has been loosely coupled (as has Dave's, > which drove my response). > > > [Horror story elided.] > > I don't want to take the alias off in a strange direction, but > I would very much appreciate seeing the mail you've accumulated in > debugging this. A couple of the items you mention are surprising, and > suggest problems in some of the integration choices, but I'd like to > see the details.
Sure, now that it's done and working I can go back and try to document everything I had to do to get here :-) It's definitely a worthwhile exercise to walk through creating a) a standalone project gate and b) a project that is a child of ON, from scratch, where you want the same policies and features of the ON gate. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
