> Now onto the answers to the questions:
> >This appears to be where install handler equivalent functionality
> This would only be true if what you were trying
to achieve in the
> install handlers were OS level things. Other things may need to be
> other touchpoints.
More generally yes, touchpoints can be used in place
of install handlers. In many cases features all contained the same
install handler perhaps with a different data file. Here you can
take that install handler, make it into a touchpoint and write an IU that
has data for that touchpoint. This way the "install handler"
code is only downloaded once, versioned and managed.
the main scripting mechanism for
> the native touchpoint
> Currently we have been using rhino for simplicity
since java objects
> can just be made scriptable and we did not have to define an input
> That said, rhino is big, may be too powerful and could make the
> understanding of configuration scripts hard, therefore it is likely
> will try to replace it with something else more declarative. But all
> is still up for discussion.
touchpoint writers are free to use whatever technology
and markup they want. As Pascal points out, we currently have chosen
an option, it we will likely move to a simpler, a more declarative approach.