The naming should probably change. I do like the name plugins, because that is what the overall idea is. One question is for a tag-mapping file is there anything in it besides the tag mappings? Right now the tag-mapping files just have tag mappings and an optional class you can intialize when the file is loaded, similar to the <plugin-class> thing. If want to eventually include other info tag-mapping-file might not be a good name anymore. Maybe plugin-descriptor or something like that would be better.
James -----Original Message----- From: Michael Turyn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Namespace handlers via injection Very good; just what we need. Minor snipes----how about changing plugin-file to tag-mapping-file or something equally descriptive, and <plugin-class class="A"> <plugin-class class="B"> to something more like: <init-load-classes> <class name="A"> <class name="B"> </init-load-classes> ...? (There might also be a use for an optional "src" parameter as well as a "name", not that I can justify it now.) But, again, very good; we obviously would need something like this at some point, and biting the bullet (before legacy code would have to be accomodated) would probably be a good idea.
