I don't have a strong disagreement to adding it. Just wondering whether
it's really needed. If you guys think it's going to be used, let's add it.
On 17 December 2015 at 14:54, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 12/17/2015 8:47 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>
>
> On 17 December 2015 at 14:39, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> I don't think you've thought this through. Of course you would want
> scope on a client template.
>
> Client Template allows scope for Service A, Service B, and Service C.
>
> Client 1, Client 2, and Client 3 all need to access Service A, B,
> and C. You'd have to define scope in each client when it would be
> easier to define it in the client template.
>
>
> I have thought it through - I just think that it's a lot more likely
> that Client 1 will invoke Service A, Client 2 will invoke Service B.
> Even if all clients invoke all services they will not have the same
> scope, but different scope.
>
>
An argument of "I don't think people will use this" is just as valid as my
argument that I think people will want to use it. The template would
define the scope that is shared between multiple clients, then each client
would add their own additional scope for the other services they need to
use.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com