On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Deepal jayasinghe <deepalk@gmai...>wrote:
> > Yes exactly. That can be done. We can use some other charactor like
> > '-' to represent '/' charactors in the service name. That will avoid
> > most of the logics I've added to properly handle this. I can resend a
> > pathc using '-' if we can agree on that.
> Then you do not need to anything ? I mean no code changes for
> dispatching ;-) .
Yes. In that case, changes for dispatching will not be needed. But
deployment changes should be there. That's what I meant by a new patch.
> Second if you can see whether to create a new deployer to handle the
> hierachical service,
I also thought about writing a new deployer initially. But after some
investigation, I found that this can be implemented in this manner without
much trouble and minimum code changes.
> then people who need that feature can use that, so
> will not break anything.
I'm sorry. But did we find any existing feature that is broken due to this
improvement during this discussion?