[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [higgins-dev] Context Termionology (was [IdAS] use cases)
|
Tom Doman wrote:
1. Did I ask this already? Are we planning to have each Higgins
implementor, implement their own IdASRegistry? That seems to be implied
by the outline below but I'm not sure why that'd have to be
reimplemented by everyone who wants to implement their own Context
Provider.
An implementor of a ContextProvider would not need to do this. But the
implementor of
an IdAS service would, UNLESS we specify a required configuration
mechanism -- which
gets us back to where we started. Higgins can provide an IdASRegistry
implementation that
works for both Eclipse and JDK, which will be enough for many
platforms. But we should also,
IMO, provide a way to extend or override the configuration approach that
Higgins
implements.
2. Yes, let's get back to your question about which Contexts are
registered and how. I'd like to see what you propose.
I suggested a few alternatives in a previous message (Subject: contexts
visible via Endpoint).
The main design decisions boil down to these two questions:
(1) Should all Contexts known to a particular ContextProvider be
registered with
the IdASRegistry? If yes, this is fairly simple. If no, then how to
we specify which
should be registered (visible to anyone using the IdASRegistry) and
which should not?
NOTE: "Visible" does not mean "openable" -- the ability to open a
Context should
be determined by policy.
(2) Is a particular ContextProvider instance associated with one and
only one IdASRegistry?
I think the answer is yes. This is important because the
ContextProvider may need to
dynamically register a newly-created Context, so it needs a reference to
its registry.
...Greg
