Re: Schema provider/CA lookup status

Raphael Ritz wrote:
> 
>> Note that there's no reason why one adapter implementation couldn't
>> choose
>> to delegate to or subclass another, so generic/common behaviour can still
>> be
>> managed.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> So assuming for the moment that we are talking about independent
> schema extensions one could simply aggregate all schema componts
> registered for a certain type/interface if there where something
> like a schema (component) registry including support for 3rd-party
> products/packages/extensions/components - what do we call it these
> days? ;-) to register their stuff on install/config load/whatever.
> 
> Dealing with conflicts OTOH might be impossible to solve generically
> but maybe the registry proposed above could at least try to detect
> potentially conflicting extensions and produce a warning -
> don't know ...
> 

Right. But this needs to be an opt-in kind of feature rather than something
that may happen magically by default. Note that I'm not ruling out the
possibliity that it's a good idea for ExtensibleMetadata to opt-in and allow
modifications to its schema independent of the rest of BaseSchema. I'm just
wary of over-generalising too soon. :)

Martin
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Schema-provider-CA-lookup-status-tf1921614.html#a5598333
Sent from the Archetypes - devel forum at Nabble.com.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV