+1 on removing SDL. It's an orthogonal issue to HiveMind and not worth the battle. As for me, editing XML in IntelliJ is quite sweet when a DTD or Schema is linked to it. I'd likely never get that same support for variations like SDL.

As long as XML is not a mandatory way to configure things then someone can always write a way to configure HiveMind in whatever way they want. I've done this with Tapestry itself (where there is some weirdnesses with XML-centric properties on objects that don't need it), and it works fine.

Perhaps scripting (Groovy is great, and the leading contender IMO) is the right way to go for configuration - but I'm not quite convinced yet.

        Erik


On Aug 2, 2004, at 10:19 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:

All this divisive talk about SDL vs. XML (vs. ???) is getting to be a
distraction from what HiveMind is all about. I think people are very
correct with the idea that the important thing is to minimize the
*amount* of content in the XML, regardless of the expression of that
content. That's where we should be concentrating ... and I have a few
ideas along that line.

Anyway, a +1 vote indicates that you feel SDL should be stripped out
of HiveMind (as a failed experment).  I'm cool with that, as long as
people piitch in to convert the many SDL into XML.

Howard Lewis Ship: -0 (binding)

--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
http://howardlewisship.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to