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.
On 2/23/11 3:48 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
I think that the issue contained
ASSEMBLY-257 is pretty well orthogonal to the discussion of
Whether the channel definition is
a composite file or is contained within a definitions.xml file
potential for the channel to be
separate contribution from some or all of its "using" producers
It is this which leads to the
question and the problem with auto-deploy.
|| Mail Point
On 2/18/11 11:06 AM, Danny van der Rijn wrote:
I agree that mechanically there is little difference between an
reference and an unsatisfied GDC. Semantically, however, there
quite a difference. In order to mechanically satisfy the
GDC (albeit minimally) all that is required is a name, and the
known exactly by the unsatisfied use of the GDC. Therefore the
already has enough information to head off the error. Not so in
case of an unsatisfied reference.
Thank you for putting it so clearly.
My concerns with auto-creation surround this possibility of
taking place as a series of steps, rather than as a "single
- and with the question of what happens at the completion of
I am concerned with the case where the Domain level channel is
in the deployed contributions but where it has not yet been
auto-creation in these circumstances is problematic, if
before the deployment of the Domain level channel.
At least for this point, this is one of the reasons
If this matters to you, perhaps we should address the question
of how they're
deployed before worrying about whether they can be
Unless stated otherwise
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,