On 6/23/14, 3:56 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
On 6/23/14, 2:52 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> • I don't understand the reason to not allow optional dependencies on
> capabilities. It would be of similar implementation complexity to the
> suggested permutation implementation, however it would avoid the problem
> of requiring 2ⁿ permutations for n optional dependencies.
I knew that would draw some comment and was already backing off it a bit
as I wrote various drafts. :)
The main thing is, say the user declares they want capability A, which
requires B and C. Then they say they want capability C. Did they forget
B or do they really not want it?
Meant to say *optionally* requires B and C.
We may also would need to deal with cases where B *or* C but not both is
required. I think in that kind of situation though it would be better to
have two capabilities with non-optional requirements.
BTW, I thinking working out the EJB capabilities/requirements will be an
excellent way to start, as it has so many.
Senior Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat