Well, it seems OK, but I think we should keep on discussing our options. One concern I have with the global config approach is that it adds manual steps for 'installing' extensions. Each extension must have installation instructions to indicate which global configurations it must be included in and where in that list it should be put (and of course, many extension are going to say that they should be at the front of the list).
-Chris -- Chris Suich chris.su...@netapp.com NetApp Software Engineer Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat On Oct 4, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Darren Shepherd <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/04/2013 11:58 AM, SuichII, Christopher wrote: >> Darren, >> >> I think one of the benefits of allowing the priority to be specified in the >> xml is that it can be configured after deployment. If for some reason two >> strategies or providers conflict, then their priorities can be changed in >> XML to resolve the conflict. I believe the Spring @Order annotation an be >> specified in XML, not just as an annotation. >> >> -Chris >> > > I would *prefer* extensions to be order independent, but if we determine they > are order dependant, then that is fine too. So if we conclude that the > simplest way to address this is to order the Strategies based on > configuration, then I will add an ordering "global configuration" as > described at > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Extensions. > > Does the order configuration setting approach seem fine? > > Darren
