Thanks Raymond - I'll work on applying this. I think you've identified a key issue here - how does a databinding's type system mapping work in the new recursive model?
In the 0.9 view, modules were flat so it was easy to make the association between a module and a TypeHelper. Recursion opens up new questions such as: * should there be a heirarchy of types to match the hierarchy of composites? * what are the sharing rules for types? Are all types shared between a parent composite and its children? Are none? * if a type is defined in multiple places in a hierarchy, which one is used? Any thoughts on how we would like this to work? -- Jeremy Raymond Feng wrote: > Hi, Jeremy. > > Attached is a patch for the SDO DataBinding code in your sandbox. It > ports the code to the new SPIs in the sandbox. Please review and > apply. > > There're several TODOs in the code. We need to understand how to get > the corresponding SDO TypeHelper for a given DeploymentContext. > > Thanks, Raymond > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
