> > I don't care if it is mbean-ref or depends, but I do care that we don't > > encode > > information about the type of attribute into the attribute name... that > > just > > does not make sence. > > I'm not sure what you are saying.
I am saying that I do not care what name you call it as long as it is reasonably terse. > These mbean-ref or depends attributes > have to be ObjectNames, and this is the only way to have an ObjectName > valued attribute. I don't see a problem in using the element tag name to > give a hint about this. That is pointless. That is what DTD/Scheme docs are good for. There is no need to taint the xml with this dribble. --jason _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
