After Malcolm's comment I don't think we should move in this direction.
Well, I don't think this is "moving in that direction" since this is how
click works since 0.x :). I still have some very old versions around,
and also quite a few applications and even presentations that rely on
this pattern :).
The classname should be
treated as an absolute name. Logically that makes sense and both IDE
implementers interpreted it
this way too. Having absolute classname makes hotlinking quite straightforward,
no mucking around
with the package name.
Another advantage of this approach is its possible to define a page outside the defined
"package"
without having to create another<pages> element.
I wouldn't do that either :).
Another point of the <pages> element was also to separate "modules" of
functionality, but without introducing a "module" tag in click.xml .
The idea of the "<page>" element was to use it *only* for the
"exceptions" from the rule, the rule being specified in the "<pages>"
element (e.g. automapping, autobinding, common package part, etc.), and
not to be used on it's own, as click.xml should be not a "dependency
injection" setting (as it looked for some users after the introduction
of the Click Services) :).
Adrian.
