Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 30.03.2004 08:45, Marc Portier wrote:
hm, if SoC is the argument, then shouldn't we consider the who is doing what discussion?
my feeling is that touching the xconf is out of question to a lot of users? They could easily write up a custom-binding and be glad they never need to learn about the xconf in the first place?
I don't know if I follow this argumentation. Having configuration splitted over multiple files might help the user at the beginning, but can lead to a nightmare at the end. But maybe I just want to do anything to perfect :)
nope, I think you are right, and I have to admit the xconf is not the real pain here, but I doubth it would help:
the only config part that would make sense on the xconf level is the class-name, the rest would be local config that needs to be in the binding file anyway (like you say: why scatter it around in different places?)
see: the big goal of this thingy would in fact to throw in a custom binding when the jxpath isn't helping out,
this calls for a simple straightforward class IMHO (like the nested fb:javascript/on-save and on-load code) and only if people think they need the additional local-config then they should provide a factory method that nows how to deal with that
at that moment I think jxpath and/or avalon dependencies are just over the top for the binding-problem the user wants to solve?
wdot? -marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
