Agreed to all that ONLY IF definitions.xml is going to contain things related to policies only. Though it is at the present moment my belief is that it could evolve to represent information more than just policy related things. This belief of mine is based on the following : -
- the name of the file is 'definitions.xml' and is not 'policy-definitions.xml' - this is defined in the assembly model specs and not in the PolicyFwk specs. If its just for policies, I'd reckon that it would have been defined completely in the PolicySpecs and only referred to in the Assembly Model specs. Right now its vice-versa. Maybe some Specs folks should give us their perspective on this. - Venkat On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I think each of those specific ones should be allowed to have its own > definitions.xml and bindingType info simply because each of them could have > their own list what intents it provides inherently. Maybe I am missing the > alternative here. > > - Venkat > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I share the same concerns as Sebastien raised. Mixing the policy > > definitions with tuscany runtime extensions in one file doesn't seem to be > > right. For example, we could have two tuscany extensions to support > > binding.ws, one is based on Axis2 while the other one is based on CXF. > > With the current approach, we will see three files: > > > > definitions.xml for binding.ws bindingType which is independent of the > > underlying ws stack > > two META-INF/services/... files, one for binding-ws-axis2 and the other > > for binding-ws-cxf > > > > With the new proposal, I cannot achieve the pluggability unless we > > duplicate the bindingType info for binding.ws in two definitions.xml. > > > > Thanks, > > Raymond > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:56 PM > > To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Declaring extensions as being available in the > > domain > > > > > > Venkata Krishnan wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ant, > > > > > > > > Yes, this sounds good to me - that will make all meta-data related > > > > to an > > > > extension available in just one place. > > > > > > > > - Venkat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What i was thinking of was along the lines of adding Tuscany > > > > > specific xml > > > > > to > > > > > the definitions file that replaces everything we currently put in > > > > > the > > > > > meta-inf/services files for binding and implementation extensions, > > > > > eg > > > > > something like: > > > > > > > > > > <definitions xmlns:tuscany=" > > > > > http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"; ... > > > > > > > > > > > <bindingType type="binding.ws" ... > > > > > > > > > > > <tuscany:binding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > providerFactory="org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.ws.axis2.Axis2BindingProviderFactory" > > > > > > > > > > model="org.apache.tuscany.sca.binding.ws.WebServiceBinding" /> > > > > > > > > > > </bindingType> > > > > > > > > > > </definitions> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO this is mixing different concerns that should be kept > > > independent: > > > > > > - domain != runtime > > > - policy definitions != runtime extensions > > > - application level definitions != system definitions > > > > > > If you don't like the current META-INF/services approach and really > > > want to change all that, I'd suggest to come up with a proper extension > > > mechanism, independent of SCA policy definitions, something like OSGi for > > > example would be more suitable for this. > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > > > > >
