At 10:31 AM -0400 10/21/04, Sean Schofield wrote:I had an idea about how we could improve the default configuration of commons-chain. It would be nice if we could have the following catalog.xml:
<catalog> <chains> <chain name="foobar.chain"> <command name="foo" className="Foo"/> <command name="bar" className="Bar"/> </chain> <chain name="biz.chain"> <chain name="foobar.chain"> <command name="biz" className="Biz"/> </chain> </chains> </catalog>
I think it's basically a good idea, although I'd want a different attribute for references; reusing "name" with the same element and different semantics would be pretty confusing.
How about "ref"?
<chain name="biz.chain"> <chain ref="foobar.chain"> <command name="biz" className="Biz"/> </chain>
Craig has since responded on this issue pointing out that it can be done. However, I have had in the back of my head a bit of a nagging concern that the XML syntax for commons-chain is verbose, if not confusing. Then again, I haven't set out to make a new chain myself yet, so I don't have a good feel about just how serious the issue is.
So, Craig -- would you object to something like the above, which is more concise, even though there is another way to do it? How about anyone else who has been interested in Chain? Is it too early to optimize the config syntax?
Joe
--
Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place."
- Carlos Santana
