On Thursday, September 18, 2003 at 12:03:20 (-0400) Howard M. Lewis Ship writes: > > <service service-id="org.puppies.math.Adder"> > <implementation service-id="org.puppies.math.Adder"> > <configuration-schema service-id="org.puppies.math.Adder"> > <configuration service-id="org.puppies.math.Adder"> > >Did you mean "point-id" or "config-id" or something (besides "service-id") in the >last two?
Hmm, are we not specifying a configuration schema for a service? That is, we are giving a recipe to the user for how to configure a service, right? Perhaps I'm confused and have inverted something mentally. <service service-id="org.puppies.math.Adder"> <implementation service-id="org.puppies.math.Adder"> If we moved to "config-id": <configuration-schema config-id="org.puppies.math.Adder"> <configuration config-id="org.puppies.math.Adder"> would "org.puppies.math.Adder" make sense? If so, I say we retain "service-id" throughout. Please explain if I've misunderstood. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
