Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > >Do you mean this (I guess not ;) )? > > > > I think we are saying the same thing. > > :-) > Great! ;)
> Assuming that we don't want to expose blocks in a classloader to the > client - instead what we want is a expose of the services that a block > provides to the client. However, as pointed out in several of the > messages on this topic, there is a requirement for the overloading of > the result of URI based resource resolution. Given the principal of > seperation of the block (in terms of client accessibility), then a > service is needed against which resources can be resolved based on > supplied URIs (as distinct from classloader based access to resources). > Yes, that's right. Now, as we all agree...we only have to get 2.1 out of the doors... Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
