Re: [VOTE] Re: Simplifying Properties / use of Registries...

[Asankha C. Perera]

The result of the vote is as follows. 8 commiters voted for 4 questions, and I have attached some notes on the actual implementation below. Thanks for all those who voted in. 1. main sequence and fault sequence Option 1: 2 votes (Sanjiva and Ant) Option 2: 6 votes (others) :: wins (see notes) 2. Overall configuration - decide on the name of the main element, and noun vs verb usage  Option 1:  8 votes (everyone) :: wins 3. Element / Attribute naming Option 3: 1 vote (Paul) Option 1: 7 votes (others) :: wins 4. Element name that defines a local registry entry that would override a remote registry entry with the same name entry: 4 votes (asankha, ruwan, indika, chathura) localEntry: Tijs, Ant, Paul :: wins (see notes) registryEntry: Ant insert/insertRegistry : Sanjiva Notes: The possibility to define your main mediator in-line right within the <definitions> without having to create a sequence named main would have its advantages, especially if all that a user wants to do is perform message mediation. Hence if we do support that, it would be possible to write a configuration such as : <definitions><log/><send/></definitions>. As it would not be too difficult for us to support this *in addition* to the main/fault mediators in sequences, I propose that we do support this as well, if no one is -1 Paul's suggestion to use the word 'local' to imply that its not persisted does have value, and Tijs and Ant agrees on it. After checking with Ruwan, Indika and Chathura verbally, I think this should be what we should go ahead with, if no one is -1. Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: So, what's the verdict? Its been 4+ days since the vote was started; let's count the results and get on with it. Sanjiva. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]