But a service is both the core implementation and all its interceptors put together, right? Extend was always confusing for me right from the start because of its established presence in OO, I guess.
-Harish
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
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]
