> The goal was to make it easier to add controller factories in the future > without breaking backwards compatibility. One day we might want to be > able to specify a type attribute on the <controller> element.
gotcha. makes sense. > Yup. I'm almost inclined to think it worthwhile to reexamine a number > of the alternative syntaxes. I'm hesitant to force people to use the > XSL mechanism, though. While I definitely agree that the option to use xsl is powerful and useful, I agree that its probably a bad idea to force people to use it. Also, I think it would be useful when an xsl transform is run on maverick.xml to write the resulting xml file to disk (maybe maverick-processed.xml or something). This file would never be loaded or used by maverick, but would be there mainly so the developer could look at it to ensure its what they wanted or just to see what is really going on. Particularly in cases where one developer inherits a maverick project from another developer, I think it would be useful for the new developer to be able to view this processed file to more easily understand what is going on. _______________________________________________ Mav-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mav-user
