I'm not sure everyone is clear - maybe its because I haven't yet
documented this :-)
There is a new type of extension point called a Startup with a
Factory... just like Mediators.
Job is a type of Startup - with its own XML, just like a mediator
defines its own XML.
So if we added another type of Startup then it would have a different
tagname. So at the moment we can have:
<startup>
<job....>...</job>
<asankha>
<scheduled to work 24x7x265>
</asankha>
</startup>
So there are three choices:
1) Keep a wrapper element for all "startups"
2) remove the flexibility to have different startups
3) Refactor the code so it can tell if its a startup or a mediator
when it hits the tag QName and do the right thing for each.
Paul
On 9/20/07, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well.. if we have other types of jobs.. can we do something like
>
> <definitions>
> ...
> <job class="x.y.z.Quartz"....>
> <job class="a.b.c.Marble"....>
>
> ...
> </definitions>
>
> thanks
> asankha
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Do you envisage we will have other kinds of Startup or should we pull
> the pluggability for that?
>
> Paul
>
> On 9/20/07, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> 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"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
