On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
At the risk of complicating matters, what about services? For
symmetry we should also consider a couple more scenarios
1) Component->Component - this must lie within a Composite and
may have local or remote semantics
2) Component->Reference with remote Binding - the wire lies within
a Composite and disappears into the remote binding
3) Component->Reference wired by the Composite - there is a local
wire between the Component and the Reference and an external wire
from the CompositeComponent to a sibling Component or Reference
(aka the "uncle")
4) Service with remote Binding->Component - the wire lies within
the composite and comes from the remote binding; this case seems
to be well covered as well
5) Service wired by the Composite->Component - there is an
external wire to the CompositeComponent from a sibling Component
or Service, and a local wire between the Service and the Component
and
6) Composite(Component->Reference)->Composite(Service->Component) -
a combination of 3) and 5) which may provide opportunities for wire
optimization
To account for case 5), a case could also be made for a
CompositeService SCAObject that could work in conjunction with its
containing CompositeComponent to pass wires around.
Agreed - I was thinking that would be symmetrical but decided to
stick with just references :-)
Yes and we also need to deal with cycle detection at some point too :-(
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
