|Re: [ecf-dev] State of the 119 distribution part|
Well, I resorted to the practical solution: registering the hook and
immediately after processing missed services. This could worst case lead
to duplication, which the distribution software is likely to filter out.
I think the races were more caused by the container manager sometimes
becoming available later than the registry hook wants to access it.
I don't know. I need to think about this some. We could support both
container creation (given type as service property) and existing
container access (as it is now)...again with service properties. But
I'm not clear on whether we should do this.
Ideally, the service should not have to bother about container creation.
Any service written for 119 should just work out of the box. This would,
however, requires the 119 distribution implementation to deal with the
container creation. By default, it should probably create every
container possible and register the service with each of them. If
container instantiators appear later, it should register the service
with the new container type.
This brings up a spec question for me...what is the desired/spec'decf,
behavior when multiple distribution systems are present (e.g. cxf,
etc)? Are all distribution providers expected to respond?
Yes. I am pretty sure that this is the case. As I said before, consider
the service to be written without knowing anything particular about the
distribution software. That's the motivation for spec-ing something like
ecf-dev mailing list