Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Anyhow if this code is doing what I think it's doing then maybe we should move it to be a little earlier in the process and more general than the sca binding. We could take the

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: Anyhow if this code is doing what I think it's doing then maybe we should move it to be a little earlier in the process and more general than the sca binding. We could take the checking code you have here and put it a little higher up where the reference targets

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

Simon Laws wrote: Was just looking at the checkin. Thanks for making the fix. Now we don't generate invalid composite files when they get written out. Re. the second part dealing with URIs. It looks to me like this is picking up the case where the URI has been specified as the name of the

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

Simon Laws wrote: On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Laws wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Simon's emphases on

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Laws wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Simon's emphases on the

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Simon's emphases on the point of view. I understand Tuscany may prefer one solution over the other. However from extensibility

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

Simon Laws wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Simon's emphases on the point of view. I understand Tuscany may prefer one solution over the other. However from

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Yang Lei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Simon's emphases on the point of view. I understand Tuscany may prefer one solution over the other. However from extensibility perspective, there need some extension points to enable Tuscany adapters to overwrite

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

Comments inline. Simon Laws wrote: On Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lou Amodeo wrote: This is a request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute as a first class attribute on its associated bindings model object. This request is

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comments inline. Simon Laws wrote: On Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lou Amodeo wrote: This is a request to propogate the value of a references

Re: [BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

I agree with Simon's emphases on the point of view. I understand Tuscany may prefer one solution over the other. However from extensibility perspective, there need some extension points to enable Tuscany adapters to overwrite the default behavior. I think the thread discussion on reference target

[BRAINSTORM] Flexibility in distributed operation and extension implementations - was: Re: Request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute on its associated bindings model object

On Sun, Feb 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lou Amodeo wrote: This is a request to propogate the value of a references target= attribute as a first class attribute on its associated bindings model object. This request is based on a requirement to