> > I am still thinking... > > <service> --> <service-point> > <extend-service> --> <service> > <extension-point> --> <configuration-point> > <extension> --> <configuration> > >
I like this, except that I would keep <extend-service> as is. I think the typical use of <extend-service> is to provide additional interceptors to an existing service (even though you can occasinally provide a service implementation as well). Perhaps the more verbose <extend-configuration> would be good too? I think even Bill initially missed that all the <extension>'s for an <extension-point> are cumulative ... would <extend-configuration> make that more clear? -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/ http://javatapestry.blogspot.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
