I thought of trying to avoid the soap module terminology. my 2 cents, I think block will work for both #1 and #2.
-- dims On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:21:36 +0600, Srinath Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) if the module is just a packaing of the Handler for usability > purposes am +1 for name it blocks > 2) I think Module is littel bit more than that, for an example I would > like to have ability to have Service ref a module and have it enabled > as the j2ee does. > e.g. > <service name="foo"> > <module ref="Authentication"/> > </service> > then the service foo has the authentication enabled. > > In the context of #2 I feel module make more sense .. thoughts? > Thanks > Srianth > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:43:09 -0500, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Can we call them "blocks"? (instead of modules?) > > > > -- dims > > > > -- > > Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/ > > > -- Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
