Hi, Yes, this is something that ran thro my mind. I guess A.composite might have to run thro both definitions.xmll(A) and definitions.xml(B) if definitions.xml(B) has brought in some re-definitions of policysets defined in definitions.xml(A). But, is this sort of re-processing / rebuild is a requirment only in this context ? If there are other contexts as well, such as re-wiring and we there is going to be a separate phase for this, then I'd like to do this as well in that phase.
Thanks - Venkat On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > snip... > > against the aggregated union of all definitions. Do you see something > > missing ? > > > The point I'm interested in is what happens to the composites that belong > to contributions that have previously been added when you add a new > contribution, for example, > > ContributionA > definitions.xml(A) > A.composite > ContributionB > defnitions.xml(B) > B.composite > > When ContributionA is processed A.composite will be processed in the > context > of any "appliesTo" statements that appear in deinfitions.xml(A). When > ContributionB is added should B.composite be processed in the context of > "appliesTo" statements that appear in both deinfitions.xml(A) and > definitions.xml(B)? Should A.composite be re-processed in the context of > "appliesTo" statements that appear in both deinfitions.xml(A) and > definitions.xml(B)? > > Simon >
