At 08:46 AM 6/28/2002 +0200, you wrote:
> <my-app>
> <component name="s" impl="xyz.Component1">
> <config>lalal</config>
> </component>
> </my-app>
>
>I would like to change this to the following:
>
> application.xml // default name
>
> <application>
> <components>
> <component name="s" class="xyz.Component1">
> <configuration>lalal</configuration>
> </component>
> </components>
> </application>
>
>Changes include:
>
> 1. applying the convention of a root element called "application"
+1
> 2. all component declarations are contained within a "components"
> element
Not sure I see the need but thats okays with me.
> 3. replace "impl" attribute with "class" to maintain consitency
> with the "class"/"type" convention
Naah - I prefer Impl. As I could then refer to a remove/web/other service
or something and autocreate component out of it or whatever. ie
<component name="s" impl="rmi://some.server:976/MyObject"
factory="Rmi2AvalonFactory"/>
So impl is just an implementation key that usually is 1 to 1 mapping with
classname but for different factories can do different things.
> 4. usage of the filename "application.xml"
Theres already a J2EE application.xml specification so I would be reluctent
to standardize on application.xml - something else maybe?
Cheers,
Peter Donald
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind,
and proving that there is no need to do so - almost
everyone gets busy on the proof."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
