On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 11:36, Rob van Maris wrote:
> The proposed extension just reuses the builderwriter code that is
> already there. 
> I totally agree that this builderwriter code has its shortcomings. But
> this shouldn't be a problem, as the whole point of the extension is just
> generating all the datasource files. Used for this purpose, the other
> files it generates are usually ignored.
I was not sure if the BuilderWriter was missing this functionality. 
I assumed that the BuilderWriter was a class that could only generate an
generic XML from a builder.
Thanx



Reply via email to