On 1/4/11 4:39 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 01/04/2011 04:15 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> Some operations (like
>> "read") would be generic and would apply to any node path, where some
>> (like the example above) would be highly specific.
>>
>
> We'll have to have rules for this such that there is no ambiguity about
> what operation is meant (i.e. there can't be a "read" operation
> associated with some subsystem address.) I think that means a limited
> set of operations like "read" that are global to all addresses and whose
> names are reserved. Everything else is like your example above.
Maybe. It might be handy to be able to override operations; or it might
just cause trouble. If the former, we can use a "most-specific-match"
algorithm for operations. If the latter, we can use some mutual
exclusion algorithm where operations *may* have the same names but not
if they overlap in any way. That way we can have a uniform rule without
having to reserve names (which can be tricky later on if you want to add
more names to your "reserved" list).
Now that you mention it, I think maybe you're right, and we should
prevent overlapping operations.
At least for 7.0. Adding an exclusion algorithm and loosening the rules
is something that can be done later if need be.
>> Of course this bypasses the other half of the problem which
is
>> describing the model and available the operations. But, by having a
>> special value type for representing a value type,
>
> Do you mean "a special value for representing a value type"? What you
> describe below looks like an ordinary value with a well-known structure.
I just mean that there is a value type whose ValueType is VALUE_TYPE. I
guess you could say "a special value called VALUE_TYPE for representing
a value type of ValueType".
You mean a value type whose ModelType is VALUE_TYPE? I'm confused what
that would mean. But no worries; this is details.
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat