| Re: [higgins-dev] Re: IdAS Registry conf call |
|
Thanks Greg, Raj, and Tom, for clarifying what I meant. I didn't mean to propose associating which would preclude two CPs from pointing at two different LDAP servers.
What is meant by "an instance of a CP" is likely overloaded. In my mind, a CP is just a packaging of code that meets the IdAS CP contract. I'm not really sure what an instance is (other than maybe that packaging). I know what an instance of IContext is, and how it's quite different from an instance of IContextFactory.
In my mind, a typical CP might only ever produce a single instance of IContextFactory (or at least only have one class that implements that interface), but may be capable of producing many different instances of IContext.
Jim
>>> Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx> 2/13/07 7:35 AM >>> I may not fully understand - but I have reservations about using the CP factory classname to identify an instance of a CP. I think I'd like to be able to configure a system using two LDAP CPs, each configured to point at a different LDAP Server. Thanks, Mike higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/12/2007 11:36:27 PM: > The one open issue which must be resolved is the datatype of the > cpid (the thing that identifies a context provider). It has been > suggested that this should just be the classname of the CP's > IContextFactory. At this point, I favor this solution, and further > note that if we see no real need for a CP factory config data (apart > from what could be added to the contextConfig), then there's no > longer a need for IdASRegistry as proposed -- leaving us with only > one registry again. > > Jim > > >>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 2/10/07 1:02 AM >>> > I volunteered to shepherd this issue, and the first thing I did was > try to update the wiki with what seemed to be consensus to me at the > end of the call. Please review that and comment -- especially on > the Out Of Scope Use Cases, TODO items, and Open Issues. > > If there are use cases that need to be in scope, I'll move them to > the Open Issues section. Unless I was spacing out, we neglected to > talk about the TODO solutions. > > Andy, Paul said you'd be willing to work on the IdASContextRegistry > section of the Wiki, and on its implementation. There may be things > that we need to explain more (in terms of requirements), and I also > had some questions that you or Paul might be able to answer (search > for "questions from Jim"). I'll try to sync up with you on Monday. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > >>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2/8/07 10:22 PM >>> > If you're on the "To" line of this email, then I'm expecting you to call in > (a total of 8). I've reserved 10 lines so if we get a couple more, we'll be > okay. I'm assuming this will run 1-1.5 hours. > > Comments/Agenda: > * http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/IdAS_Registries_Proposal > * Fielding comments, questions about the (optional) XRI resolution > technology (Drummond and Andy are the experts on this) > * Reusable abstract Registry component underneath IdASRegistry and others > * General discussion > > Date: > Friday, February 09, 2007 > > Start Time: > 11:00 AM Eastern Std Time > > End Time: > 12:55 PM Eastern Std Time > > Dial-in Number: > 1-641-696-6699 (Iowa) > > Participant Access Code: > 425999 > > -Paul_______________________________________________ > higgins-dev mailing list > higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev _______________________________________________ higgins-dev mailing list higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev |