HI Simon, There are a bunch of Policy intents that the specs defines as to be supported by SCA runtimes. I am wondering if the definitions of those intents would for the defaule base thing.
Thanks - Venkat On Nov 29, 2007 11:28 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 29, 2007 4:30 PM, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The Assembly and Policy Fwk specs mention that domain-wide definitions > > such > > as policy intents, policysets, binding type defns, impl type defns all > > defined in a 'global, domain-wide file' named. definitions.xml > > > > A single domain wide file with all definitions may not play well with > > extensibility. Here are some cases which seems to necessitate the > > existence > > of several definitions.xml file the contents of which could all be > > aggregated into a single bunch of 'domain wide definitions'. > > 1) For every binding / impl type in the domain there is a definition in > > the > > definitions.xml for the intents supported by the binding/impl. So > > whenever > > a new binding/impl is addeded the definitions.xml needs to be edited > > 2) Application Policy Administrators typically define policysets for > > various > > intents including the set of standard intents as specified by the specs > > such > > as confidentiality, integrity and authentication for the security > domain. > > The administrator defines these policysets typically in the > > definitions.xmlfile. Should the administrator also be encumbered with > > having to add the > > definitions for the standard intents as well or should the administrator > > be > > actually editing the file we are going to package and making application > > additions there? > > > > So it seems to me that there are two options... > > i) Have a single definitions.xml file in our domain module and expect > > that it be edited for every new binding/impl type and then by > application > > adminsitrators for application specific things > > ii) Allow each binding/impl type to have its own definitions.xml file > > and > > also allow contributions to have a definitions.xml file and then > aggregate > > all of these definitions. > > > > I am convinced about about option (ii) and am looking at making the > > changes > > for this unless people have serious objections. Can folks in the specs > > group > > provide their perspective to this ? > > > > Thanks > > > > - Venkat > > > My view is that there has to be a single set of definitions that are > active > in the domain. It doesn't preclude us following option ii) to achieve > this. > > Are there default definitions that don't belong to binding/impl types? I > don't imagine there is as all the definitions.xml elements look to be > related to either binding or implementations but just checking that we > don't > need a based default file. > > Regards > > Simon >
