Paul Opps.. nope.. the opposite of it..
e.g. <definitions> ... <job....>* .... <proxy... >* .... </definitions> thanks asankha Paul Fremantle wrote:
I'm not clear from your note, but I think you are saying there should be a top level tag that holds the jobs: e.g. <definitions> <xxxxx> <job>...</job> </xxxxx> ... Is that what you meant? Paul On 9/20/07, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Paul / Ruwan However, I agree we could do it. Thoughts from others? Well.. when we finalized the config language syntax, we had a top level "definitions" and then one or more "proxy", "sequence", "endpoint" etc definitions. So I guess the "job" definitions should be handled the same for consistency. asankha On 9/20/07, Ruwan Linton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, For the moment the configuration for the jobs seems to be like following; <definitions> <startup> <job ...../>* </startup> ...... </definitions> The <startup> element is wrapping all the jobs. With compared to other elements in the configuration like <sequence>, <endpoint> and all they are top level elements even mediators can appear in the top level in which case that collection is treated as the main sequence. So I propose to bring the <jobs> element to the top level as follows; <definitions> <registry ..../>? <proxy .../>* <sequence .../>* <endpoint ..../>* <job .../>* <localEntry .../>* (mediator)* </definitions> If we do have multiple types of jobs then we can let the FactoryFinder to handle that. Is there any particular reason that I am missing here? If not shall we bring these jobs to the top level before 1.1 release? Thanks, Ruwan -- Ruwan Linton http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
