On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:06, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Peter Donald wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:56, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Fortress uses some tags in a non-standard way, and it adds one that is not in existence. Peter objects to poluting the Avalon namespace--I agree on differing contracts for @avalon.component and @avalon.service;
Can you describe what you mean by @avalon.service?
A marker tag for the service work interface (as is current).
I have said several times that this conflicts with the terminology that already exists and suggested that @avalon.role is better for marking role interfaces. Do you have an objection to this?
No. Which is why I want the terminology straightened out. As long as Phoenix is willing to support avalon.role, then +1
I believe that in Pheonix, it is an external reference to the same thing.
nope it is a declaration of support for a service.
Isn't that implied by the fact that it implements the role's (AKA service's) interface?
To me it seems redundant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
