|Re: [higgins-dev] old IdASRegistry ?|
In the interest of moving forward, I'm removing the handler as of now.|
>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 8/21/07 6:13 PM >>>
>this particular case, it probably wouldn't matter who, I doubt he'll have an
And we can always restore it from CVS if it turns out we need it.
>>> "Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> 8/21/07 5:56 PM >>>
> Hmm I did not discover this handler earlier.. So its purpose is to
> initialize the IdASRegistry? I think then its not necessary anymore.
> factories. But to me this seems like an ugly solution to an non-existent
> A meta-question about the way of collaborating: Who should delete it? Me?
In general, if there's a clear owner, I'd say that person should do it. Greg
hasn't weighed in so, if he's good with it, he can execute it. Though, in
this particular case, it probably wouldn't matter who, I doubt he'll have an
>>> "Markus Sabadello" <msabadello@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 8/21/2007 5:49 PM >>>
Hmm I did not discover this handler earlier.. So its purpose is to
initialize the IdASRegistry? I think then its not necessary anymore.
If we need to keep it for whatever reason, then as Jim said context types
would have to be put into the configuration in order to registering
factories. But to me this seems like an ugly solution to an non-existent
A meta-question about the way of collaborating: Who should delete it? Me?
On 8/21/07, Tom Doman <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, I believe it is. The registry is now populated from an XRDS document
> and not from the Higgins configuration handlers.
> >>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 8/21/2007 5:03 PM >>>
> OTOH, maybe Markus' first suggestion to delete the handler was
> correct. With the way things will new work, is this handler obsolete?
> >>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 8/21/07 4:58 PM >>>
> Mike, it looks like we'll need to add some data to the config to get this
> to work.
> In order to register a factory with the new registry, we need to provide
> the factory instance (or class name) and the type (or types) of contexts
> that it can produce. So it would probably be best to allow a set of types
> (strings) be associated with each factory in the config.
> I don't think we can switch IdentityAttributeServiceHandler over to use
> the new registry until we reconcile this.
> >>> "Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx> 8/21/07 3:55 PM >>>
> I think we can delete it from org.eclipse.higgins.idas.common, but it's
> use in IdentityAttributeServiceHandler should be changed to consume the new
> one, right?
> >>> "Markus Sabadello" <msabadello@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 8/21/07 11:56 AM >>>
> There is an IdASRegistry in org.eclipse.higgins.idas.common. Can we delete
> And it seems the XML ConfigurationHandler has a dependency on that. Can we
> delete this too?
> higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev mailing list
Back to the top