ant elder wrote:
How about the binding.resource and implementation.resource? Should they be
renamed to binding.http and implementation.file? :)
...ant
Actually, yes for binding.resource, good point! :)
I'll push it out of the implementation-resource module, into a
binding-http module (since having it in implementation-resource is also
creating an inconsistency with the package names, which I noticed
yesterday as I was reviewing packages and starting to look into this
kind of naming issues).
With respect to the implementation extension type, I'd like to stick to
implementation.resource for now, as this implementation covers files,
folders, and I think could cover more "resource" types (as the Tomcat
default resource servlet can also cover "virtual" resource directories
mapped to JNDI namespaces for example).
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
