On 2/26/07, Ruwan Linton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/26/07, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ruwan > > <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???? > > Its not registry-entry inside registry-entry, but registry-entry also > pushed under the main <registry> definition tag, which we will have anyway.. > This is remote registry right? What about the local registry???? Are we going to have two registry tags one for the remote and another for the local inside which we declare registry entries.....?
Registry definition just provide a URL, impl class and a bunch of parameters to connect to the registry right. So, IMHO it doesn't matter whether the registry is remote or local, we should be able to use the same syntax to access them otherwise IMO it would be pretty complex for a user. ....
> > 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.. > > Yes, fault would be good! > > 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"
-- Saminda Abeyruwan Software Engineer WSO2 Inc. - www.wso2.org
