-----Mensagem original----- De: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Now, we could argue about the correct terms for months but the > term "type" is imho misleading here. If a type exposes all > features of a component why is it called a type and not > component? Its a TypeDescriptor. Something like "for class X there are these dependencies, these custom lifecycles" and so on. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
