On Jan 3, 2008 5:59 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip] > Rajini Sivaram wrote: > > > > Shouldn't resolution be associated with a contribution rather than a > > composite contained within it? > > Resolution is performed against a set of installed contributions. It > should be performed when it is assumed that all required contributions > are available. > > When a composite is assigned to a node, > > should the node find out which contribution it came from > > Yes > > and process all > > composites and componentType files from the contribution? > > > > - load in the node the contributions in the contribution dependency tree; > - process only implementations and composites referenced by the > composite deployed on the node. > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > And believe it or not this is pretty much what the domain tries to do. I'm still left with the problem of how to deal with contributions that are added to the domain in arbitrary orders. I just assume users add them in the correct order at the moment and return the errors that happen if they don't. Maybe this is where we need an "installed contribution" concept. >From there I can walk the tree and present the contributions that are required by a deployed composite to the node in the correct order. Not well tested yet though. Simon
