I tend to agree that these are separate concerns, and I agree that it doesn't necessarily change the sequence-of-deploying problem. I only mentioned the point because I thought you might consider the workflow around how definitions.xml gets used as different from the workflow around that of deploying composites.
In my view, it probably changes the magnitude of the problem, but not the existence.
-Eric.
On 2/23/11 3:48 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
OF36C68208.CF314DBC-ON80257840.003FD8E6-80257840.00402665@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">
Eric,
I think that the issue contained in ASSEMBLY-257 is pretty well orthogonal to the discussion of ASSEMBLY-253.
Whether the channel definition is in a composite file or is contained within a definitions.xml file does not change the
potential for the channel to be in a separate contribution from some or all of its "using" producers and consumers.
It is this which leads to the sequence question and the problem with auto-deploy.
Yours, Mike
Dr Mike Edwards Mail Point 146, Hursley Park STSM Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN SCA & Services Standards United Kingdom Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC
IBM Software Group
Phone: +44-1962 818014
Mobile: +44-7802-467431 (274097)
e-mail: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> To: Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com> Cc: Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org Date: 23/02/2011 05:47 Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] [Issue 253]: (1.2) Must a global domain channel be deployed before it can be used?
Hi Mike,
On 2/18/11 11:06 AM, Danny van der Rijn wrote:
<vdR2>
I agree that mechanically there is little difference between an unsatisfied reference and an unsatisfied GDC. Semantically, however, there is quite a difference. In order to mechanically satisfy the unsatisfied GDC (albeit minimally) all that is required is a name, and the name is known exactly by the unsatisfied use of the GDC. Therefore the runtime already has enough information to head off the error. Not so in the case of an unsatisfied reference.
</vdR2>
<mje>
Thank you for putting it so clearly.
My concerns with auto-creation surround this possibility of deployment taking place as a series of steps, rather than as a "single big bang" - and with the question of what happens at the completion of each step.
I am concerned with the case where the Domain level channel is there *somewhere* in the deployed contributions but where it has not yet been deployed. Allowing auto-creation in these circumstances is problematic, if auto-creation occurs before the deployment of the Domain level channel.
</mje>
At least for this point, this is one of the reasons that I filed
http://osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-257
If this matters to you, perhaps we should address the question of how they're deployed before worrying about whether they can be auto-deployed?
-Eric.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
