Comments in line....
On 2/26/07, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ruwan
> In the same way we define these registry entries, it is possible to
> define all our defined (named) sequences, endpoints as local in line
> registry entries. If we go in to this approach we can drop the
> definitions tag because now all of the definitions are registry entries.
I would like to do this too, but the problem is you will not be
explicitly stating whether a registry-entry is a sequence, endpoint etc...
So what if we do this:
<synapse>
<registry>
<parameter ..... remote registry definition
parameters........ />*
<registry-entry key="string" [src="url"]> string? |
<inline-xml/>? <registry-entry/>*
</registry>?
<proxy-service name="string" [transports="(http |https |jms
)+|all"]>.... </proxy-service>*
<sequence ....>+
<endpoint ...>*
</synapse>
Got the point.. and I am ok with this..... But why do we need registry-entry
inside registry-entry????
I am also proposing that we have a special sequence named "main" (like
the Java/C main method) to replace the <rules..>, and at the same time
introduce another sequence named "error" (or something better if someone
would like to propose) that will get called on any un-handled error
conditions.
Yes... a big +1. how about the name "fault" for the error sequence..
Thanks,
Ruwan.
asankha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ruwan Linton
http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
