[snip] Venkata Krishnan wrote:
I am really not able to classify these two as just related to policy implementation alone. From what I understand these two are mechanisms for extensions to publish meta-data in general and not specifically metadata related to their support for policies. I just about inferred this from what the Assembly specs says. While today, we seem to find this a good place to define policy related metadata, I guess in future this is going to be accomodating more. Is this a right train of thoughts ?
I still think that implementationType and bindingType are policy specific at this point (SCA 1.0 spec), and I won't try to guess if they'll accommodate more or less in the future or be replaced by something else.
However, if you prefer to move them out of the "policy" module, then go ahead and see where it leads you :) As long as it's not tying unrelated aspects together or creating unnatural module dependencies I'm OK with it.
As a suggestion, the next module that will still make sense to me then is "assembly" (which will then contain binding and bindingType, implementation and implementationType).
-- Jean-Sebastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
