The act of assigning an id to a <schema> is, in effect, a promise on the part of the developer that the <schema> (and the Java objects assembled from contributions to that schema) are stable enough for others to reuse.
In the case that no id is provided, it may be an oversight, or it may be that the Java objects are not reusable. Can you give me reasonable examples of why you think this change is necessary? To date, in HiveMind, everything really has been driven by real experience (generally, anti-patterns in other software, but still). -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components http://howardlewisship.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Essl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 4:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HiveMind] nested schemas > > > Thanks for the hint on schema-id! > > I've added it now. Checking and complaining early :). > > I removed the configuration-id and service-id atts and have just > schema-id. > > However I still want to access schemas even if they don't > provide an id. > Therefore in my current implementation I give each schema > which has no id > set a default id. For configuration schemas 'c:'+config-id, > for service > schemas 's:'+service-id. (This ids can also be used in > <schema id-ref=""> > ). > > What do you think of that, is this too much change? > > Thanks, > Chris > > -- > Christian Essl > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
