I still don't like implementation for the reason I mentioned. If the majority likes it, I will live with it.
-Harish
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
I like it ... but I still really like the <implementation> idea.
It makes the XML parsing somewhat easier if the two types of contributions are distinct (they're content is completely different and I will have to differentiate by the presense of an attribute).
With or without <implementation>, this is probably the most sensible option we've seen.
-- 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
-----Original Message-----
From: Harish Krishnaswamy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:07 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [HiveMind] naming update
How about this...
<service id="..."> <contribution service-id="..."> <configuration id="..."> <contribution configuration-id="...">
How do you like this?
-Harish
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
decided to lineContribution seems appropriate. So how aboutAnd, we loop full circle back to how I had it before I
<service-contribution> and <configuration-contribution>?
up with Eclipse's naming (what a mistaken idea).that will
I don't mind <service-contribution>, because its a very rare case.
<configuration-contribution> is just too long for something
be typed (until the magic tools support appears) all the time.
--
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
