Re: [sca-assembly] Looking for feedback on "injecting of channels"

On 11/17/2010 2:12 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Anish,
>
> Some comments inline...
>
> Yours, Mike
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Mike Edwards 	Mail Point 146, Hursley Park 	
> Technical Strategist 	Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN
> SCA & Services Standards 	United Kingdom
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC 		
> IBM Software Group 		
> Phone: 	+44-1962 818014 		
> Mobile: 	+44-7802-467431 (274097) 		
> e-mail: 	 		
>
>
>
>
>
> From: 	Anish Karmarkar <>
> To: 	
> Date: 	16/11/2010 08:15
> Subject: 	Re: [sca-assembly] Looking for feedback on "injecting of channels"
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I would like to understand this (the one about labeling the
> producers/consumers and requiring that ones with matching labels be
> connected to at least one common channel) further. If I got this right,
> the labels must be retained in any promotion and if one
> producer/consumer with label A is promoted all of the producer/consumers
> with the same label A must be promoted, unless they are already
> connected together via a channel (local or global).
>
> *<mje> *
> *Yes, that would be the idea - either directly connect the relevant
> producers and consumers*
> *with a channel, or else promote them to composite producers/consumers
> which all *
> *share the same ID - either of these would be viewed as "satisfying" the
> grouping *
> *requirement.*
> *</mje>*
>
> I think we should use a different name than 'GroupID', which can lead to
> incorrect impressions in the world of pub-sub.
>
> *<mje>*
> *No problem with that - can you think of a suitable name? I'm not the
> greatest inventor of*
> *names, for sure....*
> *</mje>*

Neither am I. Perhaps "label" instead of "GroupID".

-Anish
--